Science and the Bible

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Science and the Bible

#201  Postby Sendraks » Apr 05, 2017 9:37 am

newolder wrote:
No, you came here to test your faith. Reason & facts are irrelevant because faith does not require any reason or fact.


This has prompted a thought.

A test of faith, is simply whether that faith can withstand reason or fact. We've seen this demonstrated in a variety of different ways over the years, from simple blind rejection of reason and fact, to more devious weasel worded attempts to try and make the facts fit into the faith position, usually by some fairly tortured feats of logic.

"I'm here to test my faith."

You can do this by going "lalalalalalala I can't hear you" and every other way of testing faith is just a variation of that.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#202  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 9:49 am

Macdoc wrote:Passer
You are right. I don't care what your opinion is of me or even if you voice your opinions on this forum.


then quit wasting people's time with your puerile whinging....this is a community and you are NOT adding value to it. :nono:

This is not meant to sound sarcastic, but I thought this Creationist thread was for discussing Biblical themes to do with creationism. As for me not caring what Cio's opinion is of me, he is right, why should I care? If someone thinks I am insincere, or stupid, or whatever, I really should not let that bother me.

Macdoc wrote:People are just using you to play whack a mole for shits and giggles and the community in general really doesn't give fuck for an adult that can't get past the tooth fairy stage of maturity. :coffee:

Fair enough
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#203  Postby Fallible » Apr 05, 2017 9:50 am

Pebble wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
zulumoose wrote:
That is most likely the cause, but one of the most common accusations from christians is that atheists are angry and aggressive without provocation and I hate to see incidents where that accusation is warranted.


It's not warranted here. A review of the thread makes that clear. And if you want to go further, you can combine that with us being hacked off at hearing the same tired old bullshit we've heard countless times before.


A review of the thread suggests a passive-aggressive tone from the beginning, followed by more overt aggression within the first page. OK I know we have all been here before, and 'the same old shit' interpretation can lead to exasperation, hardly the thread starter's fault - and very unwelcoming.


When is the cut-off point for being welcoming? A week? A month? Six months? A year? Seven years? Because that's how long Passer has been a member here. This isn't his first rodeo, and it isn't ours with him. The whole forum was extremely welcoming and supportive of him, they showed great compassion and humanity when Passer was going through a very tough time. He even profusely thanked everyone himself, I doubt he would disagree with me. He's been coming here and asking about interpretations of biblical verses and displaying some fairly shoddy argumentation for seven years on and off. I don't think we're being at all unreasonable.
Last edited by Fallible on Apr 05, 2017 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#204  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 9:51 am

newolder wrote:
Passer wrote:
Passer wrote:To test my unshakeable faith


"I come here to test my faith."

Exercise 1 (in the test of Passer's faith)

Passer, "I believe there is discussion of Sauropods in this here book."

Test, "There is no mention of Sauropod in that text, the creature described reads, to a practising biologist, more like a crocodile, and Sauropods were extinct by the time the characters were in discussion about its observation."

Passer, "I still believe it's about a Sauropod."

[Passer then claims its faith has been tested and has survived the test.]

Thomas Eshuis wrote:What's wrong with just saying and admitting: "I don't know."

Nothing. I've admitted I don't know.

Incorrect. You claim to have faith in an old text with a dodgy history of authorship, composition and translation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And then trying to discover the answer through reason and facts, rather than believing an unsubstantiated, supernatural myth?

But I am trying to find out the answer through reason and facts. That's why I came here, because I did not think anyone here would offer me anything other than reasons and facts.

No, you came here to test your faith. Reason & facts are irrelevant because faith does not require any reason or fact.

You are welcome.

I think it is a Sauropod, I'm not say it IS a Sauropod. For the record, I'm not so sure any more.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#205  Postby Calilasseia » Apr 05, 2017 9:52 am

Passer, there are two things you can do, that will prove useful here.

First, read this post on the nature of mythology, and why it's singularly unreliable as a source of substantive knowledge (except, of course, substantive knowledge about how people fabricate mythologies).

Second, learn this definition of atheism that I proposed here some time ago in the interests of rigour, viz:

Atheism is the refusal to treat uncritically as fact, unsupported supernaturalist assertions.

While it's tempting to say "that is it" with regard to the above definition, in order to kill at source the usual duplicitous apologetics about atheism all too frequently seen arising from supernaturalists, that definition immediately invites a range of important corollaries, and in addition arises from a fundamental rule of proper discourse. That rule being, quite simply, that any assertion presented possesses the status "truth value unknown" when first presented, and retains that status until subject to test. Recognition of that rule, and the proper application thereof to supernaturalist assertions, is what leads inexorably to the definition of atheism I provided above. The corollaries arising therefrom, include the implied need to exert diligent effort determining if an assertion is testable even in principle, and if so, what test(s) can be devised to apply thereto.

Which immediately points to a major problem with mythological assertions, namely, that many of them are either untestable in principle, via accident or design. As a corollary of this state of affairs, those assertions will forever possess the status "truth value unknown", until some genius devises an actual test and applies it. Consequently, those assertions may freely be discarded, on the basis that assertions with an unknown truth-value cannot of themselves contribute meaningfully to substantive knowledge. The only purpose they serve, whilst possessing that status, is to provide a motivation to remedy the knowledge deficit with respect to their actual truth value, and those seeking to do so should be mindful of the issues that have arisen along the way, with respect to many assertions that were successfully assigned a truth-value. In short, the business of testing assertions to determine their truth-value, is a hugely non-trivial enterprise when conducted properly.

Another problem with some mythological assertions, is that they have already been demonstrated to be false. The various bizarre cosmologies asserted to have taken place in our past mythologies, have all been demonstrated to be spectacularly wrong. Instead, the universe has been found, via diligent scientific investigation, to be far older, far grander in scale, and replete with far more exotic entities and phenomena, than any of our mythologies asserted. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I treat mythology as incompetent with respect to the matter of imparting proper knowledge - the authors thereof were apparently incapable of even fantasising about vast classes of entities and phenomena that have since been alighted upon by science, and placed within precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of genuine knowledge by the scientific endeavour. In the case of the Bible, the authors did not even know of the existence of the continental land mass now inhabited by so many of that mythology's followers, a disturbing fraction of whom cling to that mythology's assertions in a manner that ranges from the infantile to the clinically psychotic.

In short, mythologies were our attempt, as a species, to provide an explanation for our surroundings, in an era when we didn't know any better. We do know better now, and it's time to relegate mythologies to their proper place.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22075
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#206  Postby newolder » Apr 05, 2017 9:57 am

Passer wrote:...
I think it is a Sauropod, I'm not say it IS a Sauropod. For the record, I'm not so sure any more.

I've edited my post to accommodate.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7309
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#207  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 10:01 am

Fallible wrote:When is the cut-off point for being welcoming? A week? A month? Six months? A year? Seven years? Because that's how long Passer has been a member here. This isn't his first rodeo, and it isn't ours with him. The whole forum was extremely welcoming and supportive of him, they showed great compassion and humanity when Passer was going through a very tough time. He even profusely thanked everyone himself, I doubt he would disagree with me.

I don't disagree at all with you Fallible. Not one bit. I was in a very dark place back in November 2010, and the people here helped me immensely. I was and still am extremely thankful to everyone. I'm still in that dark place by the way, but I get good days and very bad days.

What's upsetting to me, is people here are now getting the impression I am being dishonest, having some ax to grind, trying to push my beliefs on people, being stubborn? I'm not sure what it is, but all I am trying to do is figure out some Biblical verses. That's the truth.

I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.

Fallible wrote: He's been coming here and asking about interpretations of biblical verses for seven years on and off. I don't think we're being at all unreasonable.

I just think folk have gotten the wrong end of the stick as to why I am here. I am testing my faith, I am trying to see if I can tear it down for reasons I don't want to go in to.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#208  Postby newolder » Apr 05, 2017 10:06 am

Passer wrote:...
I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.

Yet you still think it's about a Sauropod. Which fact or reason supports your thinking?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7309
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#209  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 10:12 am

Calilasseia wrote:Passer, there are two things you can do, that will prove useful here.

First, read this post on the nature of mythology, and why it's singularly unreliable as a source of substantive knowledge (except, of course, substantive knowledge about how people fabricate mythologies).

Second, learn this definition of atheism that I proposed here some time ago in the interests of rigour, viz:

Atheism is the refusal to treat uncritically as fact, unsupported supernaturalist assertions.

While it's tempting to say "that is it" with regard to the above definition, in order to kill at source the usual duplicitous apologetics about atheism all too frequently seen arising from supernaturalists, that definition immediately invites a range of important corollaries, and in addition arises from a fundamental rule of proper discourse. That rule being, quite simply, that any assertion presented possesses the status "truth value unknown" when first presented, and retains that status until subject to test. Recognition of that rule, and the proper application thereof to supernaturalist assertions, is what leads inexorably to the definition of atheism I provided above. The corollaries arising therefrom, include the implied need to exert diligent effort determining if an assertion is testable even in principle, and if so, what test(s) can be devised to apply thereto.

Which immediately points to a major problem with mythological assertions, namely, that many of them are either untestable in principle, via accident or design. As a corollary of this state of affairs, those assertions will forever possess the status "truth value unknown", until some genius devises an actual test and applies it. Consequently, those assertions may freely be discarded, on the basis that assertions with an unknown truth-value cannot of themselves contribute meaningfully to substantive knowledge. The only purpose they serve, whilst possessing that status, is to provide a motivation to remedy the knowledge deficit with respect to their actual truth value, and those seeking to do so should be mindful of the issues that have arisen along the way, with respect to many assertions that were successfully assigned a truth-value. In short, the business of testing assertions to determine their truth-value, is a hugely non-trivial enterprise when conducted properly.

Another problem with some mythological assertions, is that they have already been demonstrated to be false. The various bizarre cosmologies asserted to have taken place in our past mythologies, have all been demonstrated to be spectacularly wrong. Instead, the universe has been found, via diligent scientific investigation, to be far older, far grander in scale, and replete with far more exotic entities and phenomena, than any of our mythologies asserted. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I treat mythology as incompetent with respect to the matter of imparting proper knowledge - the authors thereof were apparently incapable of even fantasising about vast classes of entities and phenomena that have since been alighted upon by science, and placed within precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of genuine knowledge by the scientific endeavour. In the case of the Bible, the authors did not even know of the existence of the continental land mass now inhabited by so many of that mythology's followers, a disturbing fraction of whom cling to that mythology's assertions in a manner that ranges from the infantile to the clinically psychotic.

In short, mythologies were our attempt, as a species, to provide an explanation for our surroundings, in an era when we didn't know any better. We do know better now, and it's time to relegate mythologies to their proper place.

Thank you for providing this information, I have read both and I think I understand you are saying the problem with mytholgoy is that for a number of reasons, it is not testable? I understand where you are coming from, but I am unsure as to how to continue on these forums. I would like to say "Hey, look at his verse here >any given verse>. I have been told that this means >X<. I would like to hear if you have an opinion on this verse".

I'm not trying to do anything other than learn. I will have my own opinons on things, like for example, I was pretty sure at one point (or at least wasn't fully connvinced the other way) that the verse in Job described (or at least could describe) a Sauropod. I realise that it is vague enough to describe a hippp or crocodile to name but two. But now, I couldn't really say with any gusto that I belive it is describing a Sauropod. My opinion has been changed by the folk on here. My point? I'm not here to preach, and if I do not fully accept a version offered here, I might argue my case, but it isn't from a position of "I am right because I am Christian you are wrong because you are Atheist and don't know the Bible." That's honeslty not my agenda here
Last edited by Passer on Apr 05, 2017 10:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#210  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 10:17 am

newolder wrote:
Passer wrote:...
I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.

Yet you still think it's about a Sauropod. Which fact or reason supports your thinking?

I don't think it is about a Sauropod. At least not with much conviction. Probably more conviction in thinking it is anything other than a Sauropod. The description is vague enough it could be anything.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#211  Postby newolder » Apr 05, 2017 10:19 am

Passer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Passer wrote:...
I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.

Yet you still think it's about a Sauropod. Which fact or reason supports your thinking?

I don't think it is about a Sauropod. At least not with much conviction. Probably more conviction in thinking it is anything other than a Sauropod. The description is vague enough it could be anything.

OK. Apply that thought to the rest and see how it goes.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7309
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#212  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 10:20 am

newolder wrote:
Passer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Passer wrote:...
I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.

Yet you still think it's about a Sauropod. Which fact or reason supports your thinking?

I don't think it is about a Sauropod. At least not with much conviction. Probably more conviction in thinking it is anything other than a Sauropod. The description is vague enough it could be anything.

OK. Apply that thought to the rest and see how it goes.

Will do, and thanks for the advice
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#213  Postby Fallible » Apr 05, 2017 10:21 am

Macdoc wrote:Passer
You are right. I don't care what your opinion is of me or even if you voice your opinions on this forum.


then quit wasting people's time with your puerile whinging....this is a community and you are NOT adding value to it. :nono:

People are just using you to play whack a mole for shits and giggles and the community in general really doesn't give fuck for an adult that can't get past the tooth fairy stage of maturity. :coffee:


Why do you think you can speak for the community in general? Value is subjective.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#214  Postby Fallible » Apr 05, 2017 10:47 am

Passer wrote:
Fallible wrote:When is the cut-off point for being welcoming? A week? A month? Six months? A year? Seven years? Because that's how long Passer has been a member here. This isn't his first rodeo, and it isn't ours with him. The whole forum was extremely welcoming and supportive of him, they showed great compassion and humanity when Passer was going through a very tough time. He even profusely thanked everyone himself, I doubt he would disagree with me.

I don't disagree at all with you Fallible. Not one bit. I was in a very dark place back in November 2010, and the people here helped me immensely. I was and still am extremely thankful to everyone. I'm still in that dark place by the way, but I get good days and very bad days.


Sorry to hear you're still in a bad place, but it's good to hear you have some good days. It's also good to see that your view of Revelations has changed since those early days, as it was causing you a lot of distress.

What's upsetting to me, is people here are now getting the impression I am being dishonest, having some ax to grind, trying to push my beliefs on people, being stubborn? I'm not sure what it is, but all I am trying to do is figure out some Biblical verses. That's the truth.


I understand that can be upsetting. One of the problems is that in this medium, one can never be sure that someone's intentions are what they say they are, and the means of expression chosen can often add to this. We have lots of people coming here claiming they just want answers to genuine questions who don't at all. We can't always tell the difference. Additionally, I don't know if you're aware, but sometimes the way you respond to being given what you asked for can further add to the impression that you are not asking in good faith. So when someone points out a hole in your interpretation and you argue back with objections which are pretty flimsy, this looks as though you're just taking the piss.

The behemoth thing is an example. Someone replied to you that sauropods didn't exist at the same time as humans, and an animal that Job could actually observe would be a more logical fit. Instead of accepting this valid point, which is an alternative interpretation - that's what you asked for - you went on to say you still thought it was a sauropod, and to suggest that perhaps God was explaining something to Job which exirsted before he was alive. The simplest scanning of the verses would be enough to show you how this can't be the case, as I explained to you myself. God asks Job to 'behold' the behemoth's attributes and behaviours, which Job cannot do if the creature is one which ceased to exist millions of years before he was born. This behaviour can be taken as a genuine failure to consider something obvious on your part, or as a sign that you're really just after winding people up. Since the majority of theist behaviour we see here falls into the latter camp, that's what you find yourself dealing with.

I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.


Yes, you do now. However, the way this happened made it look as though you only began stepping away from your belief that it was when you were caught out contradicting yourself. Again, this is something that mistaken people do, but also something that trolls do.

Fallible wrote: He's been coming here and asking about interpretations of biblical verses for seven years on and off. I don't think we're being at all unreasonable.

I just think folk have gotten the wrong end of the stick as to why I am here. I am testing my faith, I am trying to see if I can tear it down for reasons I don't want to go in to.


Would it really matter to you if the entire forum told you as one that there isn't a single word of truth in any of it? Honestly? I know you don't want to talk about it, but this is about your fears, not different interpretations of Bible verses, and if you're not ready to drop the fears, you ain't gunna.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#215  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 11:12 am

Fallible wrote:
Passer wrote:
Fallible wrote:When is the cut-off point for being welcoming? A week? A month? Six months? A year? Seven years? Because that's how long Passer has been a member here. This isn't his first rodeo, and it isn't ours with him. The whole forum was extremely welcoming and supportive of him, they showed great compassion and humanity when Passer was going through a very tough time. He even profusely thanked everyone himself, I doubt he would disagree with me.

I don't disagree at all with you Fallible. Not one bit. I was in a very dark place back in November 2010, and the people here helped me immensely. I was and still am extremely thankful to everyone. I'm still in that dark place by the way, but I get good days and very bad days.


Sorry to hear you're still in a bad place, but it's good to hear you have some good days. It's also good to see that your view of Revelations has changed since those early days, as it was causing you a lot of distress.

What's upsetting to me, is people here are now getting the impression I am being dishonest, having some ax to grind, trying to push my beliefs on people, being stubborn? I'm not sure what it is, but all I am trying to do is figure out some Biblical verses. That's the truth.


I understand that can be upsetting. One of the problems is that in this medium, one can never be sure that someone's intentions are what they say they are, and the means of expression chosen can often add to this. We have lots of people coming here claiming they just want answers to genuine questions who don't at all. We can't always tell the difference. Additionally, I don't know if you're aware, but sometimes the way you respond to being given what you asked for can further add to the impression that you are not asking in good faith. So when someone points out a hole in your interpretation and you argue back with objections which are pretty flimsy, this looks as though you're just taking the piss.

The behemoth thing is an example. Someone replied to you that sauropods didn't exist at the same time as humans, and an animal that Job could actually observe would be a more logical fit. Instead of accepting this valid point, which is an alternative interpretation - that's what you asked for - you went on to say you still thought it was a sauropod, and to suggest that perhaps God was explaining something to Job which exirsted before he was alive. The simplest scanning of the verses would be enough to show you how this can't be the case, as I explained to you myself. God asks Job to 'behold' the behemoth's attributes and behaviours, which Job cannot do if the creature is one which ceased to exist millions of years before he was born. This behaviour can be taken as a genuine failure to consider something obvious on your part, or as a sign that you're really just after winding people up. Since the majority of theist behaviour we see here falls into the latter camp, that's what you find yourself dealing with.

I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.


Yes, you do now. However, the way this happened made it look as though you only began stepping away from your belief that it was when you were caught out contradicting yourself. Again, this is something that mistaken people do, but also something that trolls do.

Fallible wrote: He's been coming here and asking about interpretations of biblical verses for seven years on and off. I don't think we're being at all unreasonable.

I just think folk have gotten the wrong end of the stick as to why I am here. I am testing my faith, I am trying to see if I can tear it down for reasons I don't want to go in to.


Would it really matter to you if the entire forum told you as one that there isn't a single word of truth in any of it? Honestly? I know you don't want to talk about it, but this is about your fears, not different interpretations of Bible verses, and if you're not ready to drop the fears, you ain't gunna.

Can't really argue with any of the above

I will say though, that I may offer a counter to any opinions I don't fully agree with. The Sauropod for example, if (as I did at the time) see something I don't quite agree with, I tend to reply with why I don't think the given opinion is correct. I can see how this might be viewed by some as being argumentative, but my intent is to analyze and sift through it all, and not to argue a point until I am proven right or the other person wrong.
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Science and the Bible

#216  Postby Fallible » Apr 05, 2017 11:20 am

No, I understand that just because someone offers a counter-explanation that doesn't mean you can't disagree with it or argue with it. It's the disagreement because of a point that obviously doesn't stand up that looks problematic, so the example here would be the repeated use of 'behold' in the verses, which shows that God expects Job to be able to see what he's talking about at that time.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#217  Postby Passer » Apr 05, 2017 11:26 am

Fallible wrote:No, I understand that just because someone offers a counter-explanation that doesn't mean you can't disagree with it or argue with it. It's the disagreement because of a point that obviously doesn't stand up that looks problematic, so the example here would be the repeated use of 'behold' in the verses, which shows that God expects Job to be able to see what he's talking about at that time.

Duly noted

Thank you
Passer
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 642

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#218  Postby Sendraks » Apr 05, 2017 3:18 pm

Passer wrote: I am testing my faith, I am trying to see if I can tear it down for reasons I don't want to go in to.


As I've said, you can't "test" opinions that are not held on "testable" grounds. If there are evidential reasons for what you believe, then you are not believing based on faith.

Really the only question you should be asking yourself, is whether you are happy to rely on faith as the basis for belief.
If you are happy with that, then there really isn't anything to discuss with anyone here.

My sense is you are not happy with that but, seem unwilling to take the first step in acknowledging that faith based positions are fundamentally dishonest to one's self.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#219  Postby sdelsolray » Apr 05, 2017 3:26 pm

Passer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Passer wrote:...
I said I think it is a Sauropod, I was told it is not. Ok. I accept it doesn't say Sauropod at all, and it could mean anything.

Yet you still think it's about a Sauropod. Which fact or reason supports your thinking?

I don't think it is about a Sauropod. At least not with much conviction. Probably more conviction in thinking it is anything other than a Sauropod. The description is vague enough it could be anything.


Have you considered taking the position of, "I don't know"?
sdelsolray
 
Posts: 66

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Science and the Bible

#220  Postby Alan B » Apr 05, 2017 3:29 pm

Very well, then.
As a Christian, Passer, can you give your point of view on The Lord's Prayer?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest