Dark Matter Blob Confounds Experts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
2,340
You mean like a million scientists all agreeing on evolution makes it so? When they all present their like minded peer revues, and they all agree, that that makes it so?
It doesn't make it so, it just makes it credible. It separates scientifically sound theories from half-baked nonsense (like "reverse gravity explains the cosmic microwave background") and outright bullshit (like "mutations can't reproduce").

The reviewers don't need to agree with your theory; they just need to agree that your model is consistent, your reasoning is solid, and your conclusions are consistent with your data. The scientific community sure as hell didn't agree with special relativity in 1905, but it still got published.
 

Void

[H]ard to Tame
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,296
Did the thread break? I click page 8 and I'm immediately redirected to page 7 :confused:

Working fine here, right now.
I will say that I have been having similar problems with other threads though.
 

Vader

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
5,014
It is sad that you don't understand how science works. Science seeks to explain things in chunks. It would be nice to explain everything but scientists realize that you have to explain it in chunks. Also, The Big Bang Theory, no need for quotation marks, is exactly as it is titled, a theory. Scientists acknowledge that it is a theory and may change. They feel it is the most probable explanation given the evidence. Religious people claim that 100% there is a god. They are too closed minded to even acknowledge that there is a possibility that there isn't one. A good scientist will never completely discredit the possibility a god exists. Therein lies your flaw.

What's sad is that you don't even know the scientific community which you support. The fact is that the majority of scientists are Athiests and think the idea of an all powerful being, God, even exists, so I think you are out of touch here.

You also think that because we are religous, we don't believe in Science or Science has no meaning. While my belief says science has no meaning without my creator, certainly science, which is defined as knowledge covering general truths of the operations of gereral laws obtained through scientific methods, has it's all important place. The key word in the defination is "truths."

Another misconception is that there isn't any evidence supporting the existance of God, which is utterly untrue. While there aren't blatent Scientific facts, there are historical facts which exist. This is where faith comes in. Just like some of the Scientific theories, scientists are putting faith in set of ideas and facts which have yet to prove the theory.
 

Vader

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
5,014
Give an example of empirical evidence supporting the existence of a god. Take all the time you need.

Sneaky, sneaky, I like how you leave out the next line of my comment. I stated that there was no Scientific Evidence or Facts to prove God exists, but historical facts which leads to a belief of God's existence.

How can there be emperical evidence of a Supernatural being's existence when emperical scientific evidence is validated against things that are natural.

While this is true there also isn't emperical evidence that God doesn't exist.

Having said that there are some laws like the law of Biogenesis which states:

all cells come from pre-existing cells. No exceptions in nature or in the laboratories have been observed

To say that that there is "natural" orgins would be inconsistant with scientific laws today and the mathimatical chance that this could occurr shows unprobable.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
Science= open and willing to hear new ideas and question existing ones (except global warming supporters)
Religion= close minded unwilling to accept any answer that requires logic instead of faith.

it's this kind of polarization that could not be more far from the truth.
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
Actually, the law of probability implies that it can and would (given enough chances) occur. Biogenesis doesn't deny any laws of physics and there have been steps shown that present certain candidates for a spontaneous creation of life through organic compounds. Remember, at it's core it's all chemistry and if you remember college or taken organic, you'll note that it too obeys the laws of physics and can be as a result pretty damn random.

As far as Bio is concerned, you simply need a way of storing information (think DNA) that can replicate and catalyze reactions. That's it, really. Replicate on your own or if you consider viruses as well, with the help of another. These aren't inherently difficult criteria to fill if you consider millions/billions of years of a primordial soup :p

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

I think what most religious folk fall back on when debating the validity of scientific theory is that it's true with absolute certainty. Which is absolutely right because it isn't. Unfortunately, they tend to forget that this point does nothing to validate any truth with regards to any religion, because that religion must prove itself upon its own grounds. You can't say X is wrong and therefore Y is correct unless you show the two to be correlated in such a manner to prove it. What most do is say "science is wrong therefore Y religion is correct" without ever proving why that religion is correct :p Debating scientific theory does nothing for your own religious beliefs but prove that science seems like a good way of proving things and thus validate science even further. You dig yourself a deeper hole.

It's like those people that called the shroud of Turin to be carbon dated to prove that it was in fact that old and somehow tied to Jesus, yet doing so based upon scientific principles which would need to be assumed correct in order to prove it in the first place. It's like saying science is wrong unless it works for me.
 

dadman

n00b
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
42
Here is a quote from this website(http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm) concerning a few "radical" Christian extremists who had some influence on science. If you can't stand to read this, then you are so entrenched in your dogma, that nothing will convince you that Christians are not anit-science.

Read the whole site for some "true" enlightenment if you dare.
 

dadman

n00b
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
42
Sorry, here is the quote:"Any list of the giants of physical science would include Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, all of whom, despite denominational and doctrinal differences among them, and opposition that some experienced from church authorities, were deeply committed to Jesus Christ. "
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
Here is a quote from this website(http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm) concerning a few "radical" Christian extremists who had some influence on science. If you can't stand to read this, then you are so entrenched in your dogma, that nothing will convince you that Christians are not anit-science.

Read the whole site for some "true" enlightenment if you dare.

You've missed my entire argument.

How does any of this prove the basis of Christianity is true? Not Islam? or Judaism? Shinto? Hindu?

Your arguments against science are arguments against science, not a validation of Christianity. Secondly,

"Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it's rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world.

So if something that was considered supernatural were to be explained by science, does it move such a thing from the realm of religion to scientific theory? Like, oh i dunno, gravity?
 
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
2,062
Sneaky, sneaky, I like how you leave out the next line of my comment. I stated that there was no Scientific Evidence or Facts to prove God exists, but historical facts which leads to a belief of God's existence.
Give an example of a "historical fact" supporting the existence of a god. Take all the time you need.

How can there be emperical evidence of a Supernatural being's existence when emperical scientific evidence is validated against things that are natural.
There can't be and that's the point. The human experience is bound to the natural world and all of our interactions with anything (literally everything we can do or experience or perceive) originate from and obey natures rules, saying something exists "Supernaturally" is not a valid position. It's less meaningful than saying you imagined it.

While this is true there also isn't emperical evidence that God doesn't exist.
I don't mean to be flippant but that argument holds as much water as saying "While this is true there also isn't empirical evidence that a Unicorn doesn't exist." It's an unfalsifiable assertion, which you can make about any number of imaginary things but that doesn't support their existence in the slightest.

Having said that there are some laws like the law of Biogenesis which states:
all cells come from pre-existing cells. No exceptions in nature or in the laboratories have been observed
That's not a "law". That's the pet hypothesis of a 19th century chemist, formulated before the concept of natural selection had revolutionized the biological sciences. Although, the hypothesis is falsifiable, so we can at least give it that much credit.

To say that that there is "natural" orgins would be inconsistant with scientific laws today and the mathimatical chance that this could occurr shows unprobable.
That's kind of absurd. As I said before, to date nothing that humans have ever discovered or experienced has originated from anywhere but nature. What could possibly lead a person to believe that ever won't be the case in the future? And at this point, probability has nothing to do with it. We are here aren't we, so obviously an amalgamation of natural conditions managed to produce life at least once in 13.7 billion years.
 

wabbitseason

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,511
The big bang theory and evolution are merely accepted models based on observable evidence. Religious people think that science holds these theories to be incontrovertible and unchangeable, much like their own religious beliefs. It's completely the opposite of how science works, but that's how they think science works anyway--like it's a religion.

Science is built on theories. Logical postulations based on observable evidence and the powers of human deduction. Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific community.

Religion presents its belief as fact. These facts are to be held on faith. Faith being irrational belief held in the absence of evidence, without any use of any sort of logical reasoning whatsoever. Skepticism in the religious community is seen as the highest crime.

I wonder what makes more sense.
 

Aluisious

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,189
I already posted the evidence that the Christian god doesn't exist.

Evolution, Big Bang, prayer is ineffective

Each is an example where a claim is made about what your god has done, that is now understood to be false. So much for "historical evidence."

Admit the problem is that you refuse to consider the evidence, not that it isn't available.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
Not to mention, they don't all agree =P

Just sayin, you can find lots of publications on multiple sides of this argument.

Explain this comment, because I understand the Big Bang Theory very well.

The original cause and conditions of existence are unknowable to science and all indications say that will probably always be the case. The Big Bang theory offers no explanation about what was "before" and it makes no attempt to answer the "why". That much is outside the scope of what the theory puts forth. It only offers an explanation and timeline of the universe immediately after it was already here because that is observable and can be tested. There may be speculation about the things that may have been "before" (and I have my own) but no one can claim to have any real answers or insight. We quite literally can't know, and no scientific theory has ever claimed any different.

People with whom i've discussed this did not share the above definition of the big bang theory.

Wow, your interpretation of the word faith is waaay out there. Get a dictionary.

The internet is my dictionary.

define: faith = Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

That's how i was using the word faith, which i understand could have been confusing because the second definition is: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The thing is, Zeus, Yahweh, Ra, Otletsatu... (whatever) are completely different religions. To say that Zeus and his stories as cannon, that would pretty much negate everything you believe in as a Christian.

And this is why i no longer am mainstream Christian. To say that one religion is right and the rest are wrong is just poppycock.

Science is built on theories. Logical postulations based on observable evidence and the powers of human deduction. Skepticism is an integral part of the scientific community.

Religion presents its belief as fact. These facts are to be held on faith. Faith being irrational belief held in the absence of evidence, without any use of any sort of logical reasoning whatsoever. Skepticism in the religious community is seen as the highest crime.

Indeed this is why i've left the religious community. I'm extremely Skepitcal, and when it comes to blind faith, as described above (definition #2), I have a slight problem with this. I prefer to use skepticism as a way of improving my beliefs. Is that blasphemy? Well, God will have to forgive me. He did, after all, let his Bible fall into the hands of man who have distorted it.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
I already posted the evidence that the Christian god doesn't exist.

Evolution, Big Bang, prayer is ineffective

Each is an example where a claim is made about what your god has done, that is now understood to be false. So much for "historical evidence."

Admit the problem is that you refuse to consider the evidence, not that it isn't available.

This is an examples of one of those people who use the big bang to say that creationism is false. Apparently, and i just learned this in this thread, the big bang theory claims no such thing about what created the big bang, so they could quite easily go hand-in-hand.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
Then these people weren't very familiar with the theory or the science that supports it, so basing your opinions on misconceptions would be a mistake.

Oh indeed it was foolish to base my understanding off what these people said. Thankfully I've had this thread to educate me.
 

dadman

n00b
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
42
You've missed my entire argument.

How does any of this prove the basis of Christianity is true? Not Islam? or Judaism? Shinto? Hindu?

Your arguments against science are arguments against science, not a validation of Christianity. Secondly,



So if something that was considered supernatural were to be explained by science, does it move such a thing from the realm of religion to scientific theory? Like, oh i dunno, gravity?

Well apparently you missed the entire point of that post. I was not trying to prove that Christianity is true, I was proving that Christians believe in real science just like anybody else, and that some of the most brilliant and forward thinking scientists were and are Christian. So lets stop branding Christians as anti-science, because that is not true.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,534
Science= open and willing to hear new ideas and question existing ones (except global warming supporters)
Actually, reality is the polar opposite of this.
Scientists who have disproved or do not support global warming are immediately fired and/or expelled from the field without warning.

That doesn't sound like "willing to hear new ideas" and definitely not facts. :rolleyes:
 

Mr. K6

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,077
Actually, reality is the polar opposite of this.
Scientists who have disproved or do not support global warming are immediately fired and/or expelled from the field without warning.

That doesn't sound like "willing to hear new ideas" and definitely not facts. :rolleyes:
Where's the proof? Tin foil hats don't count.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
Well apparently you missed the entire point of that post. I was not trying to prove that Christianity is true, I was proving that Christians believe in real science just like anybody else, and that some of the most brilliant and forward thinking scientists were and are Christian. So lets stop branding Christians as anti-science, because that is not true.

THIS ffs
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
Well apparently you missed the entire point of that post. I was not trying to prove that Christianity is true, I was proving that Christians believe in real science just like anybody else, and that some of the most brilliant and forward thinking scientists were and are Christian. So lets stop branding Christians as anti-science, because that is not true.

If Christians believe in science then they must also account for the speed of light and the doppler effect, which when combined together, prove with absolute certainty that the universe is older than Christians believe it to be. On the other hand, if you believe that the doppler effect and the speed of light are both wrong when judging the furthest of stars, you too must prove it.

It's fine to say you're religious and say you believe in science, because you don't ascribe yourself to a particular set of rules that you would if you were Christian (man was made in the image of God, the universe is thousands of years old, women aren't deserving of an education, etc), which we can explain and refute under the umbrella of science. Make no mistake, the findings of science and the Bible are on a collision course, but only science can explain within reason why and how its discoveries are found, whereas Christian dogma dictates the Bible can not be wrong.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
If Christians believe in science then they must also account for the speed of light and the doppler effect, which when combined together, prove with absolute certainty that the universe is older than Christians believe it to be. On the other hand, if you believe that the doppler effect and the speed of light are both wrong when judging the furthest of stars, you too must prove it.

It's fine to say you're religious and say you believe in science, because you don't ascribe yourself to a particular set of rules that you would if you were Christian (man was made in the image of God, the universe is thousands of years old, women aren't deserving of an education, etc), which we can explain and refute under the umbrella of science. Make no mistake, the findings of science and the Bible are on a collision course, but only science can explain within reason why and how its discoveries are found, whereas Christian dogma dictates the Bible can not be wrong.

Where are these christians? fuck, I've never seen one. The most dogmatic people i've ever come across are mormons. Of course the universe is more than thousands of years old, because science has proven it. I don't know my bible that well, so I'm curious to see where it says the universe is only thousands of years old, or where it states that women don't deserve an education.

IMO, you have to try really hard to interpret the bible... between the vast cultural difference between now and then, and the fact that man has tweaked the living hell out of it, I can't understand why anyone can take it for a literal, word-for-word meaning.
 

wabbitseason

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,511
Actually, reality is the polar opposite of this.
Scientists who have disproved or do not support global warming are immediately fired and/or expelled from the field without warning.

That doesn't sound like "willing to hear new ideas" and definitely not facts. :rolleyes:

They haven't "disproved" anything. They've presented evidence which is minute in comparison to the body supporting global warming.
 

Imaulle

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,213
prove with absolute certainty that the universe is older than Christians believe it to be

when the bible said the earth was 6,000 years old it was just allegory. not meant to be taken literal! damn what is wrong with you people??!?
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
Where are these christians? fuck, I've never seen one. The most dogmatic people i've ever come across are mormons. Of course the universe is more than thousands of years old, because science has proven it. I don't know my bible that well, so I'm curious to see where it says the universe is only thousands of years old, or where it states that women don't deserve an education.

IMO, you have to try really hard to interpret the bible... between the vast cultural difference between now and then, and the fact that man has tweaked the living hell out of it, I can't understand why anyone can take it for a literal, word-for-word meaning.

“Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (KJV, Genesis 3:16)

The book of Leviticus is actually riddled with it. Mentions of women undeserving of an education and that they should never be in a position of power where they rule over men. She shouldn't be near her family when on her period... It's the type of thing you and I would laugh and scoff at, but it's in the Bible :/

“Young Earth” creationists believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, and conclude that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. This age is determined by counting the generations of biblical figures recorded throughout the Bible, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden. These creationists believe that any evidence not supporting their theory is incorrectly applied, or that the data is misinterpreted. Their view is that the Bible is the only source that should be examined to prove creation, and the events recorded in it should be taken as they interpret them.

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/090203-006-science.html

Then there's the notion that Moses was like 200 years old? Give me a break.

I understand nobody in their right mind can take it literally because it's impossible, but you're forced to if you consider yourself a Christian, because Christians believe the bible is the word of God (either directly or through revelations and prophetic texts). God can't be wrong, so therefore the bible has to be right... but it's proven to have wrongs so you have to question the entirety of the foundations of Christianity.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2000
Messages
893
The original topic for this thread was actually quite interesting. Too bad it got derailed on the 2nd post by a bible thumper.
 

wabbitseason

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,511
Still, shouldn't it all be part of the big picture and all taken into account rather than dismissed?

It is part of the big picture. It's just such a ridiculously small part of the big picture that it's hardly even worth mentioning.

Do you realize that scientific heroes are the ones who prove everyone else wrong? Every scientist wants to be the one to make that breakthrough, to show that the way other scientists see or do things is wrong. In fact, the best scientists (like Einstein, Feynman) went totally outside the box. How did they succeed? By providing evidence that could not be ignored or discounted outright by a diverse, highly skeptical community. This is the ultimate validation of scientific integrity: no true scientist could EVER hold any belief in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

Also, global warming is a single issue that idiots seem to seize on. "Aha!" they say, science is rigid and faith-based. Just look at global warming and evolution.

What these idiots fail to account for is that these two theories have a tremendous body of evidence from countless independent sources that has been scrutinized and verified by a diverse, highly skeptical community.
 

dadman

n00b
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
42
If Christians believe in science then they must also account for the speed of light and the doppler effect, which when combined together, prove with absolute certainty that the universe is older than Christians believe it to be. On the other hand, if you believe that the doppler effect and the speed of light are both wrong when judging the furthest of stars, you too must prove it.

It's fine to say you're religious and say you believe in science, because you don't ascribe yourself to a particular set of rules that you would if you were Christian (man was made in the image of God, the universe is thousands of years old, women aren't deserving of an education, etc), which we can explain and refute under the umbrella of science. Make no mistake, the findings of science and the Bible are on a collision course, but only science can explain within reason why and how its discoveries are found, whereas Christian dogma dictates the Bible can not be wrong.

Pelo, do you lump all non Chrisitians into the same category in that they all believe in exactly the same things? So why do you think that all Christians agree on all matters pertaining to science?

Science only explains what you can see, Christianity explains all things pertaining to God that are supernatural and cannot be seen or quantified by man or science. Of course the Bible can't be wrong, if it is then there would be no Christianity. Do you expect believers to doubt what is their doctrinal foundation? You so readily dismiss Christianity as some kook religion that can't possibly be true, but you cannot offer any evidence to support your claim. There is ample evidence that Jesus Christ lived and walked on the earth, and that the things said of Him in the Bible are true. Stop being affraid of your beliefs being challenged, it just shows your insecurity in those beliefs.
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
You don't believe in the Bible either, though...

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

God seems awfully concerned about the practice of slavery and rape. Like you said, it must be true, though, because it is the bible and the bible is the word of God.

I don't dismiss the notion of a God as reality. I think it's impossible to do so. I do dismiss the notion of your God with absolute certainty, though.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
Pelo, do you lump all non Chrisitians into the same category in that they all believe in exactly the same things? So why do you think that all Christians agree on all matters pertaining to science?

Science only explains what you can see, Christianity explains all things pertaining to God that are supernatural and cannot be seen or quantified by man or science. Of course the Bible can't be wrong, if it is then there would be no Christianity. Do you expect believers to doubt what is their doctrinal foundation? You so readily dismiss Christianity as some kook religion that can't possibly be true, but you cannot offer any evidence to support your claim. There is ample evidence that Jesus Christ lived and walked on the earth, and that the things said of Him in the Bible are true. Stop being affraid of your beliefs being challenged, it just shows your insecurity in those beliefs.

Shit, dadman, for that matter why do people think all Christians adhere to the same beliefs? I consider myself one of these Christian folks, but i definitely don't believe every word in the bible. The original words of God were jotted down, then changed innumerable times throughout history by corrupt clergies who realized the power that religion held. You can bend entire populations by putting a couple sentences into the book. As such, I approach it with a large amount of skepticism and try hard to understand what the original intent could have possibly been.

You don't believe in the Bible either, though...

God seems awfully concerned about the practice of slavery and rape. Like you said, it must be true, though, because it is the bible and the bible is the word of God.

I don't dismiss the notion of a God as reality. I think it's impossible to do so. I do dismiss the notion of your God with absolute certainty, though.

Indeed the God portrayed in the Old Testament was a vicious one. Thankfully for us he took an about-face... I still am uncertain why such an about-face was taken if God is omniscient, you would have thought he'd have started on the good foot... but maybe humanity wasn't ready for it.

The original topic for this thread was actually quite interesting. Too bad it got derailed on the 2nd post by a bible thumper.

Okay back on topic: what if God is dark matter? :eek:
 

fattypants

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
3,284
Of course the Bible can't be wrong, if it is then there would be no Christianity. Do you expect believers to doubt what is their doctrinal foundation?
Yes, they should. If it is solid, it will stand up to skepticism.
You so readily dismiss Christianity as some kook religion that can't possibly be true, but you cannot offer any evidence to support your claim.
Skepticism is not a claim, nor is it an attack on religion. It's part of the process of finding what is correct and what is incorrect.
There is ample evidence that Jesus Christ lived and walked on the earth, and that the things said of Him in the Bible are true.
The same can be said for any number of religious leaders.
Stop being affraid of your beliefs being challenged, it just shows your insecurity in those beliefs.
Skepticism is no more a belief than "bald" is a hair color.
vkHeN.jpg


The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. Religion holds its baseball behind its back and says "we have truth!" All religion needs to do is show that its truth is correct and you won't have these annoying skeptics bugging you.
 

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
. Indeed the God portrayed in the Old Testament was a vicious one. Thankfully for us he took an about-face... I still am uncertain why such an about-face was taken if God is omniscient, you would have thought he'd have started on the good foot... but maybe humanity wasn't ready for it.

But being wrong once means the capacity for being wrong again. And technically, God can't possibly be wrong because that defies the definition of what a God is. That only leaves the possibility of the bible being wrong...

I think you quite clearly agree with some of my reasoning but you're not willing to dismiss it entirely, whereas I've long ago called it all BS. I think it's fine to live by the teachings of Christ; the dude has some great ideas that we should all strive to be like. But to go bible-thumping and claiming the bible is the work of God is utter nonsense.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
But being wrong once means the capacity for being wrong again. And technically, God can't possibly be wrong because that defies the definition of what a God is. That only leaves the possibility of the bible being wrong...

I think you quite clearly agree with some of my reasoning but you're not willing to dismiss it entirely, whereas I've long ago called it all BS. I think it's fine to live by the teachings of Christ; the dude has some great ideas that we should all strive to be like. But to go bible-thumping and claiming the bible is the work of God is utter nonsense.

Indeed God cannot be wrong, so it must me more a matter of us misunderstanding God's word, or being unable to comprehend the purpose behind his actions. Indeed much of the Old Testament was nullified by the teachings of Jesus, so in the issuance of the New Testament, parts of the bible suddenly became wrong.

I think all this results from the belief that the Bible is the word of God. While yes, many of the texts were derived from visions or prophecies from God, it is no more than a collection of historical texts which were translated and edited throughout the ages. It's still up to us to interpret them and find the true meaning.
 

wabbitseason

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,511
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Epicurus
 

fattypants

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
3,284
I read through all 16 pages....... religious people scare me.
Science as we know it today is still relatively young (less than 400 years). It will take a while to shake superstition, logical fallacy, and pseudoscience. The Bible is still a best seller. Ancient Aliens still gets great ratings. Credulity is a big business, because research and skepticism don't provide the same instant gratification.

Truth and knowledge will hopefully win in the end...but with the two most violent religions on earth (Islam and Christianity) considering the pursuit of evidence to be blasphemy, there's always that chance they could snuff out the pursuit of knowledge like they have in the past.

But religion has conceded evidence before (like when the Pope pardoned Galileo a few years back, thus finally admitting that the universe does not revolve around the earth); if we're lucky, it will happen again more often!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top