It seems that any time there is a topic that doubts some christian belief or questions whether or not it is all bullshit there are always posters who site the bible, like it proves their point. The bible was written by humans, making it instantly falliable. Just because some person says that god spoke to them and told them to write this down or if its their interpretation of some event doesn't mean that it is the ultimate truth and it doesn't prove a god damn thing. Any "holy" writing answers the same sorts of questions and preaches and subscribes to the same need for answers. I don't know why I decided to write this and I apologize if it doesn't all make sense (I am a little drunk I guess) but if someone could explain christians resoning behind citing the bible as a source and as absolute fact I would appreciate it.

All we have to base any belief or doctrine on is the Bible itself. It, then, is the only thing we have to defend, and the only thing we have that we can defend with. Why else do you think we would always have to cite it?

At no point do we force you to agree that the Bible is true.

If you were to replace "Bible" with "science" and "christian" with "scientist" and you have the exact same scenario.

Why then do you have a problem with me quoting the Bible when you must do the same thing to show that science is correct?

There is evidence to support science. In fact, science is simply a method to aquire evidence.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 04-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

If you were to replace "Bible" with "science" and "christian" with "scientist" and you have the exact same scenario.

You are an idiot.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

All we have to base any belief or doctrine on is the Bible itself. It, then, is the only thing we have to defend, and the only thing we have that we can defend with...

and you have hit the nail on the head here. using what the bible says to justify the truth of the bible is circular logic and not valid reasoning.



quote:If you were to replace "Bible" with "science" and "christian" with "scientist" and you have the exact same scenario.



no. science is not a huge monolithic theory which must be accepted on it's own merits, but a set of falsifiable modules which may be independently accepted or not accepted based on repeated scientific experiments. that is why science changes in light of new facts and thinking, whereas christianity and religion generally do not change.

one exception to this is that doctrines eventually had to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe because science proved it. just as it will one day have to accept evolution, as the catholic church already has.



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 04-21-2006).]

It's called faith, dipshit, not fact.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

It's called faith, dipshit, not fact.

If you don't question your faith, and abandon all to reason, you give in to gullibility and (as the saying goes) have no remaining guard against absurdities and like a ship without a rudder is the sport of every wind.

When we talk morality you can't quote the bible. You can't prove truth based off the bible, no matter how many times you say over and over that it is 100% correct.

And if the bible is correct, then you should be able to prove that its assertions are right anyway.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

If you don't question your faith, and abandon all to reason, you give in to gullibility and (as the saying goes) have no remaining guard against absurdities and like a ship without a rudder is the sport of every wind.

When we talk morality you can't quote the bible. You can't prove truth based off the bible, no matter how many times you say over and over that it is 100% correct.

And if the bible is correct, then you should be able to prove that its assertions are right anyway.



Dipshit, they aren't trying to prove truth, you're the only ones trying to do that.

Trying to find truth is the most hopeless quest known to men.

quote:Originally posted by Lucky7:



Dipshit, they aren't trying to prove truth, you're the only ones trying to do that.

Not according to the creator of the thread. The reply is in the context of what the creator of the thread feels they are doing (i.e. he feels they are trying to "prove" what they feel is "true").

If you have a problem with the initial assertion take it up with the thread creator.

quote:

Trying to find truth is the most hopeless quest known to men.

Then you should shut the fuck up because pointing out how someone is wrong (he wasn't in this case) is an attempt to find truth itself.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

It's called faith, dipshit, not fact.

my point exactly. the two are separate spheres and should not interfere with each other.

it makes the disilusioned bunch among us feel they are right by thinking that the higher power that made us all, also thinks the same way, hence in their opinion, it must be right.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

my point exactly. the two are separate spheres and should not interfere with each other.





Right, don't bother me with the facts right? My faith doesn't have anything to do with the truth.

Actually, sadly, that's how most people feel. Religion has more to do with comfort then truth. Unless you're a fundie wacko who's obsessed with it.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:



Right, don't bother me with the facts right? My faith doesn't have anything to do with the truth.

Actually, sadly, that's how most people feel. Religion has more to do with comfort then truth. Unless you're a fundie wacko who's obsessed with it.

The facts are not captured in school books concerning the redemption of a soul. The facts are found in the one who lives a new life with a new intent and purpose. The facts concerning religion are found on the inside of the heart and hidden from the eyes until those things eventualy govern the persons deeds.

There is not a way for "logical scientific experiment" to prove or disprove the fact of the existence of "true" love in the heart of a person. Yet, we know it exists.

You can go on and on all day long about speciation, macro and micro evolution, chromatic mapping, etc. etc. but how does it bring you any closer to loving your fellow man?

Science and religion can't be compared. The bible is not a science book nor is a science book deal with the condition of the inner spirit person. The facts are there, most refuse to accept them or acknowledge them.

Of course there are many stories that break the laws of science but do we really understand the meaning of restoring the life of a person already in the grave?

Faith is for the weak minded. Caring for others through our will alone is what makes us strong.

quote:Originally posted by Albatross:

Faith is for the weak minded. Caring for others through our will alone is what makes us strong.

That is so true, most religous followers don't even genuinely care about you other than that one hour of church, then they don't feel guilty about going back to being the hypocritical slobs they are the other 6 days of the week.

quote:Originally posted by Albatross:

Faith is for the weak minded. Caring for others through our will alone is what makes us strong.

Not true, but many weak-minded and weak-willed people are faithful.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

The facts are not captured in school books concerning the redemption of a soul. The facts are found in the one who lives a new life with a new intent and purpose. The facts concerning religion are found on the inside of the heart and hidden from the eyes until those things eventualy govern the persons deeds.

There is not a way for "logical scientific experiment" to prove or disprove the fact of the existence of "true" love in the heart of a person. Yet, we know it exists.

You can go on and on all day long about speciation, macro and micro evolution, chromatic mapping, etc. etc. but how does it bring you any closer to loving your fellow man?

Science and religion can't be compared. The bible is not a science book nor is a science book deal with the condition of the inner spirit person. The facts are there, most refuse to accept them or acknowledge them.

Of course there are many stories that break the laws of science but do we really understand the meaning of restoring the life of a person already in the grave?



Sure. Deep down we all feel the love for each other you are talking about. And you're right, science has nothing to do with that love...but neither does faith.

Religion generally tends to get in the way of loving other people. Customs, laws, self-righteous attitudes and things all get in the way of loving.

Science and religion don't necessarily 'belong' together, but supposedly they are both truth, and if two true things disagree, one of them is wrong. This is when before we give complete allegiance to an 'inerrant' book, it is a very good idea to confirm that it is true first. Ahem.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

All we have to base any belief or doctrine on is the Bible itself. It, then, is the only thing we have to defend, and the only thing we have that we can defend with. Why else do you think we would always have to cite it?

At no point do we force you to agree that the Bible is true.

If you were to replace "Bible" with "science" and "christian" with "scientist" and you have the exact same scenario.

Why then do you have a problem with me quoting the Bible when you must do the same thing to show that science is correct?

I totally agree, and would like to add this too

Science relies on Math, yet Math cannot be proved by Science...

quote:Originally posted by potentgirt:

I totally agree, and would like to add this too

Science relies on Math, yet Math cannot be proved by Science...

Maths in science is the numerical representation of the relation between one or more variables or constants. When stating a scientific 'fact' any maths used is based on what can be tested and verified physically.

So saying that maths needs to be "proven" is nonsensical. It's the equivalent of asking a carpenter to 'prove' his tools work when the evidence of their effectiveness is obvious by the results they consistently produce.

When you're practicing science, you need to adhere to a certain scientific method, which I believe is created by humans. Well, it had to of been that way.. We didn't just appear and suddenly know science.

Science is a way in which to explore for answers and that's about all it is. Our narrow mindedness shows in how we're only willing to accept this way as a way of evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

That is so true, most religous followers don't even genuinely care about you other than that one hour of church, then they don't feel guilty about going back to being the hypocritical slobs they are the other 6 days of the week.

:\ Care about who exactly? Most people go to churh to learn and to socialise with other Christians, given that atheists hate us and you can't have a religous discussion with them. If you think people go to church to feel good about their sins... you don't know much. Hypocritical maybe.. But at least we can admit that we go by faith and don't pretend to know of fact exclusively.



[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

When you're practicing science, you need to adhere to a certain scientific method, which I believe is created by humans. Well, it had to of been that way.. We didn't just appear and suddenly know science.

Science is a way in which to explore for answers and that's about all it is. Our narrow mindedness shows in how we're only willing to accept this way as a way of evidence.



I wouldn't claim that science is narrow minded, it operates on the principle that in order for a scientific statement to be taken seriously it needs to be reproducible and falsifible.

This prevents mainstream scientists, or anyone else for that matter, from claiming they've turned water into wine without having to provide evidence or even give an explanation as to how.

Otherwise how else do you provide evidence that can be tested and shown to be true?

This is why Christians stick to the Bible fiction like limpets, if they were to examine the unverifiable claims it makes in a rational debate without using rhetoric they would lose every time. This is why they try to poke holes in the gaps of scientific knowledge rather than examine the rotten edifice on which their own beliefs are based on.

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

I wouldn't claim that science is narrow minded, it operates on the principle that in order for a scientific statement to be taken seriously it needs to be reproducible and falsifible.

This prevents mainstream scientists, or anyone else for that matter, from claiming they've turned water into wine without having to provide evidence or even give an explanation as to how.

Otherwise how else do you provide evidence that can be tested and shown to be true?

This is why Christians stick to the Bible fiction like limpets, if they were to examine the unverifiable claims it makes in a rational debate without using rhetoric they would lose every time. This is why they try to poke holes in the gaps of scientific knowledge rather than examine the rotten edifice on which their own beliefs are based on.

It's fairly simple.. God.. nor Jesus (who can atleast be proved to be real) did not leave scientific evidence. It was a very different world back then, and I'm guessing science was virtually undiscovered. But there's some people who say 'well why didn't he'.. Well I suppose the initial way to get to people was via people's accounts of the situations.. which would then create the bible for our generation to read.. back then, science probably would have left people dumbfounded.

These days... we have a leap of faith we need to get in to. I'm not trying to make excuses... but Christianity is based upon faith.. so how is it that atheists always bring science in to this to supposedly prove their claims?

If you're going to attack Christianity with science.. of course I'm going to attack science. But on the other side of the chapter, the things science explains could have been created by God. I'm just saying.

Science will never explain what's beyond the universe, nor will it explain what happens in first-person when you die.. and I suppose that's all that is really important. Christianity doesn't prove anything about these two points but it gives an explination.



[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

It's fairly simple.. God.. nor Jesus (who can atleast be proved to be real) did not leave scientific evidence. It was a very different world back then, and I'm guessing science was virtually undiscovered. But there's some people who say 'well why didn't he'.. Well I suppose the initial way to get to people was via people's accounts of the situations.. which would then create the bible for our generation to read.. back then, science probably would have left people dumbfounded.

Creationism vs. Evolution

You're quite right, God didn't leave any evidence behind did he?

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

These days... we have a leap of faith we need to get in to. I'm not trying to make excuses... but Christianity is based upon faith.. so how is it that atheists always bring science in to this to supposedly prove their claims?

Because faith is meaningless, I could have faith that the human race is being controlled by a 7 foot tall purple monkey who lives on the dark side of the moon and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

If you're going to attack Christianity with science.. of course I'm going to attack science. But on the other side of the chapter, the things science explains could have been created by God. I'm just saying.

According to the Bible (or rather the people who literally interpret it) the earth is either 6 or 10 thousand years old depending on who you ask. Science doesn't explain God's creation it debunks it.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

Science will never explain what's beyond the universe, nor will it explain what happens in first-person when you die.. and I suppose that's all that is really important. Christianity doesn't prove anything about these two points but it gives an explination.

You have no authority to state what science will or won't do in the future. On the other hand the Bible will remain essentially the same and it will probably generate the same mindless unthinking rhetoric ad infinitum until/if Jesus Mk II turns up, or until such time as people stop believing in fiction.



[This message has been edited by Slave of the Beast (edited 04-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

...These days... we have a leap of faith we need to get in to. I'm not trying to make excuses... but Christianity is based upon faith.. so how is it that atheists always bring science in to this to supposedly prove their claims?

Atheists do not try to support the lack of belief of God using science. They understand that you cannot disprove a negative. We do support (with science) our arguments against the illogical and often impossible claims set forth by the Christian perspective.



quote:If you're going to attack Christianity with science.. of course I'm going to attack science. But on the other side of the chapter, the things science explains could have been created by God. I'm just saying.

If you intend to attack science, be my guest. Just make sure that your arguments are based on falsifiable evidence. Not on metaphysics. That's the thing about science. If currently accepted evidence were found to be incorrect, the current evidence would be thrown out and be replaced with the new .

quote:Science will never explain what's beyond the universe, nor will it explain what happens in first-person when you die.. and I suppose that's all that is really important. Christianity doesn't prove anything about these two points but it gives an explination.

An explanation which is not based on actual evidence is not an explanation, it is wishful thinking.

quote:

Creationism vs. Evolution

You're quite right, God didn't leave any evidence behind did he?

Well if you ask Christians, we believe everything we have in the planet, and even we are the evidence.. But then.. it just boils down to what you believe.

quote:

Because faith is meaningless, I could have faith that the human race is being controlled by a 7 foot tall purple monkey who lives on the dark side of the moon and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong.

You're right.. I wouldn't be able to prove you wrong.

quote:

According to the Bible (or rather the people who literally interpret it) the earth is either 6 or 10 thousand years old depending on who you ask. Science doesn't explain God's creation it debunks it.

It barely debunks it at all. The Bible does not clearly state how old the earth is... It's very viable if the earth is older.. because we weren't the first here. There were many creatures before us.. then the earth was essentially remodelled for the human race.

quote:

You have no authority to state what science will or won't do in the future. On the other hand the Bible will remain essentially the same and it will probably generate the same mindless unthinking rhetoric ad infinitum until/if Jesus Mk II turns up, or until such time as people stop believing in fiction.

If Christianity is wishful thinking.. then believing science is going to give atheists everywhere hope is wishful thinking. Scientists are often wrong... The bible has yet to be disproved.. Pretty good for something that doesn't change. They must of been damn smart people to plan ahead 2000+ years.

quote:

Atheists do not try to support the lack of belief of God using science. They understand that you cannot disprove a negative. We do support (with science) our arguments against the illogical and often impossible claims set forth by the Christian perspective.



Nothing's impossible... it's crazy to even ponder how we got here.

quote:If you intend to attack science, be my guest. Just make sure that your arguments are based on falsifiable evidence. Not on metaphysics. That's the thing about science. If currently accepted evidence were found to be incorrect, the current evidence would be thrown out and be replaced with the new .

Well feel free to disprove the supposedly old claims in the Bible. Refer to what I said above.

quote:An explanation which is not based on actual evidence is not an explanation, it is wishful thinking.

Then surely, if you have no evidence to go against nearly all of it... you can see where this is leading.

Apparently we have no evidence... so where's yours?

I'd gladly shift my thoughts if you could prove that without a doubt god isn't real.. Jesus was lying... all of those people were lying.. and this was all created essentially from nothing (my mistake... the planet was formed from nothing.. and the earth was formed from some rock coming together). Let's hope you can disprove Christianity before I die. Seems like you're advanced enough. We're just the old christianity ;p

[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



Well if you ask Christians, we believe everything we have in the planet, and even we are the evidence.. But then.. it just boils down to what you believe.

You're right.. I wouldn't be able to prove you wrong.

Which puts your religion on a par with the purple monkey.

And I doubt you'll even bat an eyelid at that statement. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

.. then the earth was essentially remodelled for the human race.

You haven't got a shred of evidence to support that claim.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

It barely debunks it at all. The Bible does not clearly state how old the earth is... It's very viable if the earth is older.. because we weren't the first here. There were many creatures before us..

If Christianity is wishful thinking.. then believing science is going to give atheists everywhere hope is wishful thinking. Scientists are often wrong... The bible has yet to be disproved.. Pretty good for something that doesn't change. They must of been damn smart people to plan ahead 2000+ years.

The bible indicates the earth is only a few thousand years old by means of adding up the ages from Adam and his descendants, and that it was created in days.

This has demonstrably been shown to be complete bullshit.

quote:

Which puts your religion on a par with the purple monkey.

And I doubt you'll even bat an eyelid at that statement.



I suppose, then, science is too on the par with the 'purple monkey'.. Seeing as.. you're unable to even prove whether your purple monkey exists or not http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:You haven't got a shred of evidence to support that claim.

Please.. don't go on about how little evidence I have.

quote:The bible indicates the earth is only a few thousand years old by means of adding up the ages from Adam and his descendants, and that it was created in days.

Misconception. Adam and Eve were created in a period of 6 full 24-hour days. The earth was here long before that; and according to the bible, a different earth at that.

quote:This has demonstrably been shown to be complete bullshit.

Where? Wow, scientists are even able to reproduce the earth forming are they?

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



I suppose, then, science is too on the par with the 'purple monkey'.. Seeing as.. you're unable to even prove whether your purple monkey exists or not

Actually scientists would just send a probe up there, religion on the other hand would be none the wiser.

Your, or any other, faith can be described as the willing acceptance of ignorance.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



Please.. don't go on about how little evidence I have.

I'm not the one making outrageous claims I can't substantiate.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



Misconception. Adam and Eve were created in a period of 6 full 24-hour days. The earth was here long before that; and according to the bible, a different earth at that.

Adam and Eve were created on the six day; Gen 1.26-31

And where in the Bible does it state that more than one earth has been created?

You faith is based on a book you seem incapable of reading! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



Where? Wow, scientists are even able to reproduce the earth forming are they?



I guess you haven't covered radioactive decay, plate tectonics or astronomy in school yet have you?

If you had you'd find that the earth cannot be the age the Bible suggests it is, and that the process of planet formation can be shown to be completely devoid of any devine influence.

quote:Actually scientists would just send a probe up there, religion on the other hand would be none the wiser.

Feel free to do said probe.

quote:Your, or any other, faith can be described as the willing acceptance of ignorance.

It's ignorant when we're refusing facts, as you seem to believe. Please tell me what exactly we are refuting so blatantly?

quote:I'm not the one making outrageous claims I can't substantiate.

Of course it's outrageous to someone who appears to live for science... Science is very much limited.. Science can work wonders for some of the things we have no earth.. but that is really just about it. Science can't explain psychology... Science can't explain paranormal happenings (too many have happened to refute them)... How then am I the one making outrageous claims when science can once again barely compete?

You make it sound so simple.. but it's so complicated that your apparently advanced science can't prove anything either way. That doesn't make Christianity correct.. nor science, however.

quote:Adam and Eve were created on the six day; Gen 1.26-31

I think this is misconcieved. According to the Bible the creation week in the first chapter of Genesis is simply a recreation account. A proper translation of Genesis 1:1-2 should read as follows:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth had become without form and void (empty chaotic and confused) and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The Hebrew word, hayah, translated was in the second verse can easily be translated became, or had become. An example of this occurs a few verses later in Genesis 2:7:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became (hayah) a living being. "

This scripture reveals that the earth was created with various forms of life, including the dinosaurs, and then it became a cosmic wasteland. In the opening verses of Genesis the earth is covered in a deep mantle of water. All life that had been originally created became extinct, including the dinosaurs. The earth was as the scripture says "without form and void." Then God recreated and refashioned the earth to be able to support human life.

Although the Bible is silent on how much time elapsed between Genesis 1 and 2 the earth does not necessarily have to be extremely old. The only reason that long ages are necessary is to accommodate the evolutionary theory or theistic evolution.

quote:And where in the Bible does it state that more than one earth has been created?

There, if you pay attention. And also, I never said there was more than one earth.. I said the earth went through various stages.

quote:You faith is based on a book you seem incapable of reading!

If only that were the case.

quote:If you had you'd find that the earth cannot be the age the Bible suggests it is, and that the process of planet formation can be shown to be completely devoid of any devine influence.

How can you say that it shows there was no divine influence when you don't know how this divine influence operates? How would the evidence need to appear so that it looked like divine influence? Little microscopic men putting together everything? Perhaps God put everything together the way he did and you merely have an explination for how. Maybe the 'big bang' was his "Let there be light."

But then, maybe the big purple monkey is doing it all http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) ... I don't think science will be telling us for a long time.





[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-23-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



Of course it's outrageous to someone who appears to live for science... Science is very much limited.. Science can work wonders for some of the things we have no earth.. but that is really just about it. Science can't explain psychology... Science can't explain paranormal happenings (too many have happened to refute them)... How then am I the one making outrageous claims when science can once again barely compete?

Barely compete? Oh, fuck off...your explanation to any given question is "God did it", don't even talk to me about competing.

And psychology is a science, you fool.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



You make it sound so simple.. but it's so complicated that your apparently advanced science can't prove anything either way. That doesn't make Christianity correct.. nor science, however.

The difference is science continually pushes at the edges of human knowledge, theists are on the side of an ever retreating boundary.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:



I think this is misconcieved. According to the Bible the creation week in the first chapter of Genesis is simply a recreation account. A proper translation of Genesis 1:1-2 should read as follows:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth had become without form and void (empty chaotic and confused) and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The Hebrew word, hayah, translated was in the second verse can easily be translated became, or had become. An example of this occurs a few verses later in Genesis 2:7:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became (hayah) a living being. "

This scripture reveals that the earth was created with various forms of life, including the dinosaurs, and then it became a cosmic wasteland. In the opening verses of Genesis the earth is covered in a deep mantle of water. All life that had been originally created became extinct, including the dinosaurs. The earth was as the scripture says "without form and void." Then God recreated and refashioned the earth to be able to support human life.

Although the Bible is silent on how much time elapsed between Genesis 1 and 2 the earth does not necessarily have to be extremely old. The only reason that long ages are necessary is to accommodate the evolutionary theory or theistic evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

It's ignorant when we're refusing facts, as you seem to believe. Please tell me what exactly we are refuting so blatantly?

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

There, if you pay attention. And also, I never said there was more than one earth.. I said the earth went through various stages.

There is no geological evidence to suggest that in between dinosaurs and men the earth was entirely covered by water.

There is however plently of evidence to the contrary. The bible is full of bullshit like this, if you want refutations read the bible then get an education and you'll soon be swimming in them.

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

How can you say that it shows there was no divine influence when you don't know how this divine influence operates? How would the evidence need to appear so that it looked like divine influence? Little microscopic men putting together everything? Perhaps God put everything together the way he did and you merely have an explination for how. Maybe the 'big bang' was his "Let there be light."

But then, maybe the big purple monkey is doing it all ... I don't think science will be telling us for a long time.

There is no evidence that something called God is at work. As I've said faith relies on blind ignorance and offers no rational explanation.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:



Sure. Deep down we all feel the love for each other you are talking about. And you're right, science has nothing to do with that love...but neither does faith.

Religion generally tends to get in the way of loving other people. Customs, laws, self-righteous attitudes and things all get in the way of loving.

Science and religion don't necessarily 'belong' together, but supposedly they are both truth, and if two true things disagree, one of them is wrong. This is when before we give complete allegiance to an 'inerrant' book, it is a very good idea to confirm that it is true first. Ahem.

All I can say is that there is much hidden from you if you focus on the things in the bible that can't be proven by scientific logic.

You have already stated the things governed by the laws of God (or the bible) are seperate from science (which discovers the laws of the carnal). Then how can you claim they must match in order to be true if one doesn't have a part in the other?

Therefore, by what you say, if it does not agree with your views and experience then it must all be false. Therefore, your allegiance to the always true, never changing, book of science has dispelled any and all truth or logic found in the bible.

That my friend..is unwise. If you want to know about the ever changing world and universe around us then by all means, open a science book. (By the very definition of scientific theory, be forwarned, that some of what is in the science book is guaranteed to be false and historicaly that fallability is proven false as it is applied to reality as new "discoveries" are found.)

If you want to learn about God and the condition of man then go to the bible and study why cities and people fall. Find out why men do evil and good. Science does not govern God but God does govern science.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

All I can say is that there is much hidden from you if you focus on the things in the bible that can't be proven by scientific logic.

I don't. I focus on the things that can be proven by scientific knowledge and have been disproven.

You have already stated the things governed by the laws of God (or the bible) are seperate from science (which discovers the laws of the carnal). Then how can you claim they must match in order to be true if one doesn't have a part in the other?

I never said that. I said they don't necessarily belong together because science is about what we know, and religion is about what we believe (myths, tales, moral laws, etc). However, when religious things that are said to be infallible can be checked scientifically, we must do so objectively to make sure we aren't just being gullible.

Therefore, by what you say, if it does not agree with your views and experience then it must all be false. Therefore, your allegiance to the always true, never changing, book of science has dispelled any and all truth or logic found in the bible.

I'm not really following you there. Science is not all true, never changing, and that is its advantage. The bible is the one that is 'so called' all true, and obviously never changing and that is the problem. I am not the one with misplaced allegiance to a book. Also, science is not a book. Science consists of thousands (if not millions) of books filled with vast amounts of knowledge that humans have collected over the years. We can link them all together and really piece together our existence, it's truly amazing. I mean, unless certain things hold us back...

Here are a few quotes:

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'

Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively. The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

[Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

"Secondly, the expose' of fraud and error in science is made almost exclusively by science. But the exposure of fraud and error in faith-healing is almost never done by other faith-healers."

[Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark"]





That my friend..is unwise. If you want to know about the ever changing world and universe around us then by all means, open a science book. (By the very definition of scientific theory, be forwarned, that some of what is in the science book is guaranteed to be false and historicaly that fallability is proven false as it is applied to reality as new "discoveries" are found.)

You approach this as if it were bad. Terrible, that people are wrong. But you know what? So is the bible. Many times. The difference is that while science changes after proven wrong, religion doesn't. You act as though changing your mind after being proven wrong is a bad thing. Oh, actually, that explains a lot then.



If you want to learn about God and the condition of man then go to the bible and study why cities and people fall. Find out why men do evil and good. Science does not govern God but God does govern science.

Funny, then, that he would write an infallible book that would be proven wrong by the science he governs. I'm sure it was a test of faith right? More like gullibility.

quote:Originally posted by Moridin:

It seems that any time there is a topic that doubts some christian belief or questions whether or not it is all bullshit there are always posters who site the bible, like it proves their point. The bible was written by humans, making it instantly falliable. Just because some person says that god spoke to them and told them to write this down or if its their interpretation of some event doesn't mean that it is the ultimate truth and it doesn't prove a god damn thing. Any "holy" writing answers the same sorts of questions and preaches and subscribes to the same need for answers. I don't know why I decided to write this and I apologize if it doesn't all make sense (I am a little drunk I guess) but if someone could explain christians resoning behind citing the bible as a source and as absolute fact I would appreciate it.

Why do lawyers feel that referring to the Constitution proves their point ?

quote:Originally posted by Albatross:

Faith is for the weak minded. Caring for others through our will alone is what makes us strong.

You have faith that gravity exists, and will work in your favor for the duration of your life.

Man, you are SO weak !

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Unless you're a fundie wacko who's obsessed with it.

*waves her arm back and forth*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You have faith that gravity exists, and will work in your favor for the duration of your life.

Man, you are SO weak !

You can watch gravity at work by dropping something on the ground. This has nothing to do with faith.

Because their entire lives revolve around it.

after reading all of this gibberish, i have concluded that Jacobjac is a fucking idiot. no mature christian would respond in such a manner.

digital_savior, lawyers refering to law and the constition in court is akin to a preacher refering to the bible during a sermon, not refering to the bible outside of church in an attempt to prove science wrong, or to put the bible on par with science. this is clearly a bad analogy...but somehow i am not suprised you used it.

and wtf? you think it requires faith to believe in gravity? if you seriously think this grab your dictionary, look up 'faith,' and think about it for a while. for you, probably a long while.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

after reading all of this gibberish, i have concluded that Jacobjac is a fucking idiot. no mature christian would respond in such a manner.

digital_savior, lawyers refering to law and the constition in court is akin to a preacher refering to the bible during a sermon, not refering to the bible outside of church in an attempt to prove science wrong, or to put the bible on par with science. this is clearly a bad analogy...but somehow i am not suprised you used it.

and wtf? you think it requires faith to believe in gravity? if you seriously think this grab your dictionary, look up 'faith,' and think about it for a while. for you, probably a long while.

No mature Christian would respond in which kind of manner? Too used to us shutting up while we listen to your garbage? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Perhaps Christians aren't the idiots you proclaim we are.

When you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion, that is once you've grown up, feel free to.

I'm an idiot for questioning science? Sigh. It's illogical if it goes against something science has yet to prove? :\ If science hasn't proved it.. what then do I do? It's up to faith from that point. As much as you'd like to think, you just can't prove it either way.. so in essence I'm an idiot for questioning your beliefs. But my beliefs are crap. Alright.

In the end.. it's about what I believe. There's no point in posting here really... In the end, science can't prove there isn't a God, so until that point I'll believe in the people who worked effortlessly to death to get this across to us, and I'll believe in God... It's the best explination we have of what's outside of the universe.. or perhaps the only. False or not.

I do agree with some points of view though.. I'm open minded.. I agree that gravity was a bad example.. and that people shouldn't use the bible to prove science wrong unless it is undoubtable. But.. perhaps we should think differently. You essentially have an explination for how things form (well, some things). But I want to know what created them? Chemicals created them? Where did those chemicals come from? I'm being very loose on examples here.

[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-24-2006).]

You can believe in a god, fine.

What I have a problem with is religion. There’s how many religions, and the majority of people who subscribe to a religion believes theirs is 100% the correct religion, and that everyone else is just wrong, then in that religion people start believing they know their god better than everyone else and it’s just pathetic. Then, they become self-righteous and believe their religious text is 100% correct and think they’re on some mission, and start trying to force it down everyone’s throat. Creationism, killing pagans, etc.

It’s all so childish, dangerous, and demeaning to humanity.

quote:Originally posted by smallpox champion:

You can watch gravity at work by dropping something on the ground. This has nothing to do with faith.

1. You can't see gravity.

2. You have faith that it will always be there to keep you planted on the ground. We don't know how it really works, so making any claims about it other than how we see it affecting us and our environment would be moronic. That was the fundamental point of my post.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

after reading all of this gibberish, i have concluded that Jacobjac is a fucking idiot. no mature christian would respond in such a manner.

digital_savior, lawyers refering to law and the constition in court is akin to a preacher refering to the bible during a sermon, not refering to the bible outside of church in an attempt to prove science wrong, or to put the bible on par with science. this is clearly a bad analogy...but somehow i am not suprised you used it.

and wtf? you think it requires faith to believe in gravity? if you seriously think this grab your dictionary, look up 'faith,' and think about it for a while. for you, probably a long while.

Atheists believe that the Bible is a book written by men.

Everyone knows the Constitution was written by men.

Both, therefore, can be considered flawed, so the argument that it is unreasonable for a Christian to rely on the very book that dictates their faith to them is just as fallacious as saying it is unreasonable for a lawyer to refer to the Constitution as a proof for any argument they could make, since they clearly rely on it to dictate their laws to them.

I am not surprised you didn't follow the "analogy".

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Atheists believe that the Bible is a book written by men.

Everyone knows the Constitution was written by men.

Both, therefore, can be considered flawed, so the argument that it is unreasonable for a Christian to rely on the very book that dictates their faith to them is just as fallacious as saying it is unreasonable for a lawyer to refer to the Constitution as a proof for any argument they could make, since they clearly rely on it to dictate their laws to them.

I am not surprised you didn't follow the "analogy".

Terrible "analogy". The constitution can be reviewed and amended. The Bible is fixed, unchangeable. If men truly held the constitution to the same circular logic applied to the bible (It's right because it says so), you wouldn't have a right to vote today. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



If you were to replace "Bible" with "science" and "christian" with "scientist" and you have the exact same scenario.



Except science is created through constant trial and error, whereas the bible was just written, perhaps based on faith. Not the same scenario.

If a religious type really didn't expect you to believe their bible is true, then they would never refer to it in a debate to try and prove their religion. Unless they took an asside to talk to themselves.

this (http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html) might help you oppressed christians understand what we are saying.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

1. You can't see gravity.

2. You have faith that it will always be there to keep you planted on the ground. We don't know how it really works, so making any claims about it other than how we see it affecting us and our environment would be moronic. That was the fundamental point of my post.

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

Maybe you just don't know how gravity works.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

this (http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html) might help you oppressed christians understand what we are saying.

This would not hurt either.

The only thing thinner than thin crust pizza at round table is the skull of christians.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Terrible "analogy". The constitution can be reviewed and amended. The Bible is fixed, unchangeable. If men truly held the constitution to the same circular logic applied to the bible (It's right because it says so), you wouldn't have a right to vote today. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

The ability to change the document makes it more infallible ?!

There's a news flash for ya.

The analogy is fine, and my point is illustrated. The average Christian uses the Bible as proof, because that's our best resource.

Then there are the Christians in highly specialized fields of science, math, and philosophy, who refer to other things.

I don't see the sense in asking a person why they choose to use something as evidence, when we all do that, about everything.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The ability to change the document makes it more infallible ?!

There's a news flash for ya.

I don't recall arguing that the Constitution was less fallible. I'm suggesting that all social mandates are fallibe. The constitution was fallible when it was written. Parts are still in debate and considered fallible today. Being amendable allows us to fix the errors as we find them and as times change.

The Bible, if man-made (as you assumed in making the analogy), is also fallible. Unlike the constitution, is is unchanging. Meaning when you find a problem in it, or a law seems shady, you can't change it. All you can do is try to beat around the bush, ignore it, or spend hours coming up with half-assed apologetics trying to explain why the law wouldn't apply today.

2 written laws, both treated by their respective followers in entirely different manners and attitudes. Poor analogy.

ya sometimes i wonder if digis is really that stupid or just intellectually dishonest enough to make these stupid arguments.

the bible is self-validating. in a logical sense it is meaninless because it represents circular logic. this book was written by god because it says it was written by god and god is infallable. anyone who changes the bible will be struck down, according to the bible.

the constitution on the other hand, recognizes it was written by men, and allows a process for it to be changed.

besides, lawyers refer to law in court, priests refer to the canon in church, using the constitution to argue about socialism as much sense as using the bible to argue about evolution, geology, and science.

did you even read the field guide to critical thinking i linked to?

Does anyone not believe the bible was written by man?... I mean, Mark, Job, John, Timothy, Peter... Clearly those men were the authors of those first-person accounts...

Am I missing something?... Obviously God was not Jewish, why would he write a book in hebrew?...

all christians believe that the bible is the word of god. they believe that the holy spirit posessed the men and told them what to write. essentially that means it was written by god and infallible. this is basic church doctrine here.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

this (http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html) might help you oppressed christians understand what we are saying.

I read it... So you're saying we should back up our claims with evidence and this evidence must be indestructable.

I can't... Since when do Christians claim the bible as scientific evidence? As I'm sure I've read somewhere else here... it's faith. And, unfortunately, 'science' doesn't give much of an alterantive answer for what's outside of the universe or what happens after death. So what is it? "We can't come up with an answer so lets critisise theirs?"

About this 'professor' explaining that most of us claim that the earth is no older than 10,000 years... Well.. that's for people who believe that.. as I demonstrated in another post, I and a lot of others believe it's saying that the earth was here long before humans.

quote:You can believe in a god, fine.

What I have a problem with is religion. There’s how many religions, and the majority of people who subscribe to a religion believes theirs is 100% the correct religion, and that everyone else is just wrong, then in that religion people start believing they know their god better than everyone else and it’s just pathetic. Then, they become self-righteous and believe their religious text is 100% correct and think they’re on some mission, and start trying to force it down everyone’s throat. Creationism, killing pagans, etc.

I agree with you. Christianity is a little different given it's one of the oldest and generally speaking, oher religions spawn out of variations of the Bible. I personally don't pretend to know what is right. I keep an open mind... For all I know God wanted us to be hindus so I no longer disrespect religions like that... I believe in God and Jesus and that's what is important to me.

Anyway.. where was I... There's still a million ways to interpret the Bible and in the end I certainly don't think every other Christian or the church are always correct.. That's why I like to find the most logical explination in the Bible, rather than what I'm being told by others.



[This message has been edited by Jacobjac (edited 04-25-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Jacobjac:

I read it... So you're saying we should back up our claims with evidence and this evidence must be indestructable.





NO!!!!!



read it again.

quote:Christianity is a little different given it's one of the oldest and generally speaking, oher religions spawn out of variations of the Bible.

I don't mean this to be a flame, but that statement is terribly incorrect. If anything, the Bible ripped off older religions.

Story of Noah = ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh

Jesus = Osiris & Dionysus

Mosaic Law = Code of Hammurabi (and a few other law codes)

Many (dare I say 'most') of the stories of the Bible parallel stories written centuries (sometimes millenia) earlier.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The ability to change the document makes it more infallible ?!

There's a news flash for ya.

I don't recall arguing that the Constitution was less fallible. I'm suggesting that all social mandates are fallibe. The constitution was fallible when it was written. Parts are still in debate and considered fallible today. Being amendable allows us to fix the errors as we find them and as times change.

The Bible, if man-made (as you assumed in making the analogy), is also fallible. Unlike the constitution, is is unchanging. Meaning when you find a problem in it, or a law seems shady, you can't change it. All you can do is try to beat around the bush, ignore it, or spend hours coming up with half-assed apologetics trying to explain why the law wouldn't apply today.

2 written laws, both treated by their respective followers in entirely different manners and attitudes. Poor analogy.

The Bible is unchanging ? What about The Gospel of Mary, Judas, and Thomas ?

People ARE trying to change it, but God is not allowing it to happen. You can ignore the spiritual implications if you want to. *shrugs*

You are entitled to your opinion about the analogy, but my point still stands. A person references something because they think it is valid.

It's a shame I had to break that down to the binary for you.

*head explodes*

Ewww...

*mops up kenwih's head*

if that was binary then wheres the 0's and 1's, your EXCUSES serve no purpose what so ever. I guess every time someone cites the Bible from now on I'm going to cite a different holy book that relates to the same topic.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Christianity is a little different given it's one of the oldest and generally speaking, oher religions spawn out of variations of the Bible.

I don't mean this to be a flame, but that statement is terribly incorrect. If anything, the Bible ripped off older religions.

Story of Noah = ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh

Jesus = Osiris & Dionysus

Mosaic Law = Code of Hammurabi (and a few other law codes)

Many (dare I say 'most') of the stories of the Bible parallel stories written centuries (sometimes millenia) earlier.

Good point.

I did misspeak.. I dare say.. a lot of modern religions are based on variants of the Bible. I didn't say all so don't get me mistaken.

About the Bible being parallel to older religions.. This is a rather older argument from older data (though still held by contemporary Assyriologists). It's generally mixed data which is then formed in to an objection.

ANE scholars discovered some small similarities (eg; setting the record straight) but certainly nothing concrete.

This argument has died down greatly. There is a rational explination shall you choose you accept it.

I could go in to much larger and more specific detail if you'd like me to.

jacobjac, i like you, you're not arrogant like ds and hyro, but that is just incorrect.

the only religions currently based off the bible are christian. these are all the same religion, just different doctrines. eventually, christianity will be unheard of and people would laugh at you for believing it just like people now laugh at the existence of sumerian or greek gods.

as far as i know, most of the old testament and even the new testament are virtually the same as older sumerian, greek, and assyrian writings. there are virgin births, god's incarnatings, dying, and being resurrected, 'global' floods, creation stories, good vs evil, etc, etc, etc.

jacobjac, i like you, you're not arrogant like ds and hyro

after reading all of this gibberish, i have concluded that Jacobjac is a fucking idiot.

Could have fooled me.

How can I be arrogant if I have no confidence in my flesh or my abilities? What have I said that is arrogant? You want me to be a doormat. But kindness does not equal weakness. And a strong debate does not equal arrogance. It would be well with you to differentiate between the two.

How can Digital Savior be arrogant when I just recieved THIS (http://digital.savior.youaremighty.com) in an email from God concerning her??

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

How can Digital Savior be arrogant when I just recieved THIS (http://digital.savior.youaremighty.com) in an email from God concerning her??



Good point, but next time you may want to try making your point for your side instead of helping our argument. Just a thought.

Wow..... I guess sarcasm isn't your strong point.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Bible is unchanging ? What about The Gospel of Mary, Judas, and Thomas ?



Those are all Christian Gnostic texts. They all existed before 400 A.D. and were banned by the Catholic Church as heresy, and therefore explicitly excluded from the Bible. Gnostics use a very different Bible than mainline Christianity. If you're a Christian, then you shouldn't use those as an example of Biblical flexibility. The Christian Bible was decreed to contain certain texts by the Church hundreds of years ago, and for most books, around 400 A.D. Those books have not changed in the interim.

Nobody is trying to change the Bible right now. Gnostics are trying to find their own holy texts (reviving the religion of Gnosticism), but Christians still disavow those books as being heresy, being untrue. Learn your religions and the differences between them.

I am a Gnostic myself. There are many different versions of the creation myth that Gnostics believe in, and each of them is different from the Christian myth. In fact, Gnostic belief is that the Jewish God (Jehovah, Yaway, or however you want to spell/pronounce it) is the Devil. Try to explain that one to your pastor when you suggest adding those books to your Bible...

Does that mean I try to prove my beliefs? No. I am quite certain that the Christians are wrong about the infallibility of their books. I don't believe my books to be infallible, either. They are purely metaphorical (another difference between Gnostics and Christians).

Religions serve a societal purpose, that of providing a method of explaining moral values in a way that is easily understood. "Do not kill" is a pretty good rule for society, generally, whether you explain it as being a command from God or as a means to avoid depleting the gene pool. But equating ANY human creation with ultimate truth is a recipe for folly. Religions are NOT the source of truth, but a means of explaining common values and ideas that are necessary for efficient human community.

Science doesn't even try to claim unfallibility. That makes it superior to the religions of most of us -- it's not pretentious or unchanging. It has room to breathe, to change as our societal needs change. If only a (mainstream) religion could so easily accomplish this.

BTW, Gnostics have, throughout history, had widely varying collections of religious texts. There was no single collection used by all Gnostics. Each sect had its own books, and usually its own versions of books, much as the early Christian sects did. That's right -- originally, the Christians were not given a particular set of books and told, this is your Bible. Each group of Christians could freely choose and rewrite the books they used to make them fit their own needs and uses. Try telling your Church leaders that you're going to write your own version of the Bible today, but omit Revelation, The Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and the Acts, and replace them with the Gospels of Thomas and Judas, the Acts of Peter (Gnostic version), and the Book of Truth. See what they say.

If, as you say, modern Christianity is flexible enough to change with the times, they should be GLAD to let you do this, and adopt the new book for their congregations if it meets their needs...

Maybe we should look at all modern religions. The actually core of the religion, the principles and morals and values of the religion. Lets look at all these and try to learn what they are trying to teach us.

The Bible and other religion documents are just stories, only stories, whether they are written by man or some divine creator. These stories are trying to tell us something. We don't need to kill each other because one person butters his or her bread on the wrong side.

The trick to being not modernly "religious" but actually spirital is to not take these stories literally.

If you are a christian, and you say that jesus died for you then look at why he died for you. Look at what he tried to show you.

But the human race laughed and made a mockery of this poor man's attempts to expose the good in people. They set out in wars and death in the name of whatever higher being they believed in.

Just chill out.

quote:Originally posted by KABar:

Maybe we should look at all modern religions. The actually core of the religion, the principles and morals and values of the religion. Lets look at all these and try to learn what they are trying to teach us.

The Bible and other religion documents are just stories, only stories, whether they are written by man or some divine creator. These stories are trying to tell us something. We don't need to kill each other because one person butters his or her bread on the wrong side.

The trick to being not modernly "religious" but actually spirital is to not take these stories literally.



Agreed. You are a wise man (or woman, can't tell by the username). Search for truth wherever it may lie is the best advice. Be open to information which contradicts your beliefs. Let truth be truth even if it's inconvenient.

quote:Originally posted by Moridin:

It seems that any time there is a topic that doubts some christian belief or questions whether or not it is all bullshit there are always posters who site the bible, like it proves their point. The bible was written by humans, making it instantly falliable. Just because some person says that god spoke to them and told them to write this down or if its their interpretation of some event doesn't mean that it is the ultimate truth and it doesn't prove a god damn thing. Any "holy" writing answers the same sorts of questions and preaches and subscribes to the same need for answers. I don't know why I decided to write this and I apologize if it doesn't all make sense (I am a little drunk I guess) but if someone could explain christians resoning behind citing the bible as a source and as absolute fact I would appreciate it.

Wasn't every piece of literature out there written by humans?