So correct me where I have been wrong.
Poll: Who believes in God?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
So correct me where I have been wrong.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
I don't know, ask a Christian
Why does it have to 'stand' for anything anyway? I didn't say the Bible was metaphorical in the traditional sense of the word, as used in every day writing. Use your imagination, if you have any.
Last edited:
Your opinion of the bible holds no more or less weight than anyone elses, as you have no more proof of your position than anyone else... Well, unless you've got a time machine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
The Bible is an historical account as much as a religious text. A biased one, perhaps, but an account nonetheless.
The vast majority of our historical knowledge comes from such accounts, mostly biased.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,290
The things it says are so fantastic, and cannot be reproduced that its entire contents become questionable, quite clearly. Id never EVER use it as a serious source of data for discovering the past, You would be quite mad to do so.
Exactly as I just said above its contents are so silly thats its highly likely to not be true, if you cant do anything or take the content as 'fact' it should be shelved in the 'fictional' area of literature.
My beef is that people take it as a 'fact' book, such as a technical manual or scientific instruction paper,
'the earths a few billion years old because of.........using this test.............calculating this...........gives a degree of confidence over 99% .............heres how I did it..........so you can do it also...............if your results match then we can be even more sure.........etc'
So a book containing that should be labeled 'fact' the bible should be put next to harry potter and star wars, as you can no more use the force than turn water into wine or something
why I have to explain such obviousness is
Anyways im going to skip out of this thread, look up previous threads on this subject iv contributed too, I am always dumbfounded by people that maintain fiction as fact though, quite bizarre.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
How much of it have you read?
why I have to explain such obviousness is
Because you are applying the assumptions you have faith in, and the analytical structure you believe to be correct to the problem, and failing to acknowledge that they may not be appropriate in the context discussed...
To anyone without your faith in the approach of science and it's assumptions to any and all situations (as opposed to the situations it was designed to investigate), your argument only shows your faith, not your knowledge.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
You asked 4 questions, I answered them and pointed out where you were assuming unnecessarily but you ignored all of that to pick up on some of the more implausible events in the Bible with attempted sarcasm. It obviously depends on your interpretation but for the majority of people that I've ever met who are Christian, the Bible is not to be taken entirely literally, it is allegorical. For future reference capitals and asterisks do not make your point any more true.
Most of the murder in the Bible was advocated in the Old Testament aka The Vengeful God period, the New Testament supercedes it with a loving and merciful God and not incidentally states that the Old Testament is not the way things should be now. The feeding of the 5,000 has a few possible explanations but again the most common would be that it is allegorical rather than literal with the numbers referred to being linked to important numbers in Christianity.
Ahh the old 'religous intelligent response'Can you tell iv discussed this a million times ?
Not with someone intelligent, obviously...
And you've read the bible have you? All the way through?
Name me a book to read that is based on fact, there's fewer than you think.
Science = theories (not facts)
This is the most common mistake people make regarding the difference between science and religion (apart from not actually reading the Bible, or more commonly reading certain sections of it and not understanding that it's not meant to be a "Daily Mirror: Book of religious facts"), to the point where scientists adopt an almost religious belief in their theories...
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
It's also funny how the people who typically place the most faith in science are those who know very little about it. Any real scientist will tell you that science is not there to give us facts regarding the nature of the universe; rather it's there to describe it.
On that note, how is Jesus' use of parables/allegories to explain why we should be nice to each other and generally try and get along better any better or worse than Stephen Hawking using an analogy of a heavy object on a trampoline to explain how the space-time continuum can be distorted by mavity?
Both are using stories/fabrications in order to try and explain a point - one's a moral point, the other is a physical property. The difference between them is that the latter is a scientific theory, which we can test against observation, but it's just that it's a theory, it's not REAL, it's not actual, it's just a model to help us understand the universe better.
mavity doesn't actually work via the means of a trampoline, and the feeding of the 5,000 isn't a story about how to be thrifty with herring and a loaf of Hovis.
Both are using stories/fabrications in order to try and explain a point - one's a moral point, the other is a physical property. The difference between them is that the latter is a scientific theory, which we can test against observation, but it's just that it's a theory, it's not REAL, it's not actual, it's just a model to help us understand the universe better.
mavity doesn't actually work via the means of a trampoline, and the feeding of the 5,000 isn't a story about how to be thrifty with herring and a loaf of Hovis.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
How can I be both a firm believer in the principals of Science have what most people would consider a very logical mind and yet at the same time be a worshiper of the Goddess and have a firm Pagan faith?
It is called faith and faith is something that cannot be defined with rationalization and logic.
I'll say it again, religion in general is a cause for good rather than harm, it just happens to be that programs you see on the TV only focus on the negative, minority of bad people.
It is called faith and faith is something that cannot be defined with rationalization and logic.
I'll say it again, religion in general is a cause for good rather than harm, it just happens to be that programs you see on the TV only focus on the negative, minority of bad people.
Why though, I'll never understand why people believe in something that is completely illogical. I've said it before and i'll say it again, if you follow any religion you are not believing in a God you are just believing what other people have told you to believe in. Which is not belief or faith it's just mindless obedience.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 3,322
- Location
- Blackpool
Bill Cosby? if hes not God then who is?
It isn't completely illogical at all. Logic is a process applied to evidence and assumptions to determine the appropriate position. What you mean is that when you use the assumptions from science, it's not logical to believe in a religion.
However, whether the assumptions of science, designed to make it useful in a predictive and descriptive context, are appropriate in any other context, is certainly an issue that's open to debate.