Bible vs. Science

I respond to your posts when it is à propos of the discussion. So for exemple, when you attempt to peddle tripe such as a suggestion that references to fairy tales in the bobble are just an example of an equivalent but opposing assertion of faith, it is completely appropriate to point out that you believe all the god codswallop as an act of blind faith, while other people reject these tales as fairy tales on more sound bases--such as those which i have advanced against the flood fairy tale.

You frequently attempt to resolve any such issues to "well, that's just what i believe, and you just choose to believe differently." That's horse poop--you believe in the bobble based on blind faith; the people who here who have been on topic with regard to the subject the Bobble versus Science have objected to the fairy tales, and explained in a detailed manner why they consider these stories to be fairy tales. That is not at all equivalent to saying "well, that's just what i believe" without giving further explanation.

So, as long as you peddle horse poop in such threads, i will loudly complain about the mess and the stench.

0 Replies

So what's YOUR point? You obviously have missed mine. Rolling Eyes

Bible = God's word
Science = Man's word

0 Replies

I didn't miss your point, i've rejected it as the horse poop which it is.

The bobble is a set of fairy tales. People who assert that it is a collection of fairy tales, such as myself, make the assertion based upon the improbability of the stories contained therein. You choose to believe that the Bobble is "god's word"--you have advanced no evidence beyond your statement of preference. Other members posting here, including me, have explained in detail why the stories of the bobble are fairy tales, and have made reference to science. Science is not "man's word" as opposed to "god's word." Science is a method of examining the material, naturalistic world on a material, naturalistic basis. Any "god" you dream up is supernatural, and therefore, is not a subject for scientific investigation. The bobble specifically is being examined here in comparison to science because of assertions of literal truth on the part of some adherents to scriptural authority.

Basically, you appear to operate from a common fundamentalist basis--the paranoia that the purpose of science is to disprove the existence of "god." However, as has already been pointed out, any "god" which existed would be supernatural, and therefore right out of the province of science. Science does not "care" whether or not there is a "god."

But this thread has a specific point, and that is a challenge to biblical literalism. All your efforts to claim that these are two competing belief sets are shot down by the fact that people who do believe that there is a "god" do not necessarily believe that every word of the bobble is literally true. And, of course, the world is full of literally billions of theists--believes in a "god"--who don't believe a word of the bobble, and couldn't care less about it.

0 Replies

You know something, for someone as intelligent as you, you "act dumb" pretty good.

Give it a rest, Setanta! I know plenty of us have told you and others that we don't have the evidence some of you require. I know I've said it so many times I can't count it.

So, you think science is bigger than God? Go ahead. That's your decision. Just because YOU think that doesn't make it any more true than does the fact that I believe there is a God. The only difference between us is YOU seem to think you have the DEFINITIVE say in it. You do, for YOU. Not for me nor anyone else.

You know very well what I have been trying to say about having discussions that can actually be beneficial for all without the bullying words and attitudes. So please 'STOP ACTING DUMB" by trying to justify what you do. I don't think too many others buy it anymore than I do.

You, of all people, know that science and faith in God have not one thing in common. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

MOAN wrote:

You know something, for someone as intelligent as you, you "act dumb" pretty good.

If you're going to attempt to insult, you'll need to do better than that, that doesn't even rise to the level of a grammar school playground.

Quote:

Give it a rest, Setanta!

Don't give me orders. Your bullying is not only pointless, i makes you look the fool.

Quote:

I know plenty of us have told you and others that we don't have the evidence some of you require. I know I've said it so many times I can't count it.

I haven't asked you to provide any evidence--i've just pointed out that any "god" you stipulate will of necessity be supernatural, and therefore outside the realm of materialistic inquiry. Science is a method for materialistic inquiry--therefore, it is not concerned with whether or not supernatural things exist.

Quote:

So, you think science is bigger than God?

I've said nothing of the kind. You are either unwilling, or, more likely, unable to understand the distinction being made here. Any "god" is by definition a supernatural being. Science is a method of naturalistic investigation. Therefore, sciences does not "care" whether or not any god exists.

Quote:

Go ahead. That's your decision.

No, it's not. I've decided nothing of the kind. Your only resource here is to warp what others have written. You are constructing a strawman.

Quote:

Just because YOU think that doesn't make it any more true than does the fact that I believe there is a God.

I don't think that, so this is a meaningless statement on your part. I really have little interest in seeing you pummel your strawman, especially as it is constructed in so clumsy and unconvincing a manner.

Quote:

The only difference between us is YOU seem to think you have the DEFINITIVE say in it. You do, for YOU. Not for me nor anyone else.

This is another strawman. As i have said nothing of the kind, it is an absurdity to attempt to claim that i think i have the definitive word on something which i have not in fact said.

Quote:

[You know very well what I have been trying to say about having discussions that can actually be beneficial for all without the bullying words and attitudes.

There is nothing bullying in pointing out the flaws in your goofy thesis. You are objecting to people for saying things which they have not said.

Quote:

So please 'STOP ACTING DUMB" by trying to justify what you do.

I'm not "acting dumb," and shouting about it won't make it true. The justification for what i have written is that you are attempting to assert that this is a clash of equal and opposing belief sets, whereas i have pointed out that you make your assertions on a basis of "that is just what i believe," while i and others here provide detailed explanations for why we object to the bobble as fairy tales.

Quote:

I don't think too many others buy it anymore than I do.

You, of all people, know that science and faith in God have not one thing in common.

There's nothing to buy, i have not peddled the crap you have attributed to me. Of course i know that science and faith are not commonalities--the point is to get you to recognize that and stop posting crap which asserts that: "this is just what i believe, and that is just what you believe."

If you don't do that, i will have nothing to comment upon.

0 Replies

In case anyone who pops in to casually read doesn't understand the foregoing, i will take it upon myself to speak for the author of the thread, or at least to elucidate my understanding of this thread.

The title of the thread is not "God vs. Science." The purpose of this thread is not to disprove the existence of any putative deity.

The title of this thread is "Bible vs. Science." It is the purpose of this thread to challenge the concept of biblical literalism, to challenge the idea that all parts of the bible are inerrant truth. If that's a problem for some of the theists here, too bad, so sad.

0 Replies

Setanta Wrote:

Quote:

If you're going to attempt to insult, you'll need to do better than that, that doesn't even rise to the level of a grammar school playground.

I wasn't trying to insult you at all. I was stating what I discern from your posts.

Quote:

Don't give me orders. Your bullying is not only pointless, i makes you look the fool.

Sorry, not trying to give you orders. It's just another one of those "expressions" that I didn't really think needed explaining.

Quote:

I haven't asked you to provide any evidence--i've just pointed out that any "god" you stipulate will of necessity be supernatural, and therefore outside the realm of materialistic inquiry. Science is a method for materialistic inquiry--therefore, it is not concerned with whether or not supernatural things exist.

And? Has anyone tried to say differently? Isn't all anyone is doing is telling you and others how they see things and why? I didn't read anywhere that anyone said anything different than what you just said in that paragraph.

Quote:

I've said nothing of the kind. You are either unwilling, or, more likely, unable to understand the distinction being made here. Any "god" is by definition a supernatural being. Science is a method of naturalistic investigation. Therefore, sciences does not "care" whether or not any god exists.

First, I didn't say you said it. It is what I gathered from your posts. And what good would God be if He wasn't supernatural? If He wasn't supernatural He would just be a human!

Quote:

No, it's not. I've decided nothing of the kind. Your only resource here is to warp what others have written. You are constructing a strawman.

Wasn't my intention but I'll try to watch that.

Quote:

I don't think that, so this is a meaningless statement on your part. I really have little interest in seeing you pummel your strawman, especially as it is constructed in so clumsy and unconvincing a manner.

Ok, my mistake. I apologize.

Quote:

This is another strawman. As i have said nothing of the kind, it is an absurdity to attempt to claim that i think i have the definitive word on something which i have not in fact said.

Definitely not trying to construct anything here. From the way you post it seems very clear to me you are in effect saying, "You are right and I and those that believe are wrong."

Quote:

There is nothing bullying in pointing out the flaws in your goofy thesis. You are objecting to people for saying things which they have not said.

You're right. Others can see exactly what is being posted and they know bullying when they see it. I apologize to everyone for not giving everyone enough credit for that.

Quote:

I'm not "acting dumb," and shouting about it won't make it true. The justification for what i have written is that you are attempting to assert that this is a clash of equal and opposing belief sets, whereas i have pointed out that you make your assertions on a basis of "that is just what i believe," while i and others here provide detailed explanations for why we object to the bobble as fairy tales.

I keep forgetting to put "Caps for emphasis only". I'm not shouting. I don't recall saying this is a clash of equal and opposing beliefs at all. The only thing I said I think is equal is that neither of us can prove whether there is or is not a God.

Quote:

There's nothing to buy, i have not peddled the crap you have attributed to me. Of course i know that science and faith are not commonalities--the point is to get you to recognize that and stop posting crap which asserts that: "this is just what i believe, and that is just what you believe."

See! You haven't been listening at all! I've told you this over and over and over again. I do recognize it. And, sorry, but I will post what I believe no matter why I believe it, just like you do. Equal rights and all. :wink:

Quote:

If you don't do that, i will have nothing to comment upon.

This made me giggle! I didn't know I exerted that much power over you that you just can't help yourself but to respond!

Yeah, I missed our little bantering sessions a bit too. But, enough entertainment for one afternoon!

Xingu,

If I may ask you, exactly what was the purpose of starting this thread because I am sure that you know there is no commonality with science and faith in this respect?

So can you explain a little more fully what you are actually looking for?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Xingu,

If I may ask you, exactly what was the purpose of starting this thread because I am sure that you know there is no commonality with science and faith in this respect?

So can you explain a little more fully what you are actually looking for?

From page 1 of this thread.

xingu wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Why are you attempting to show that the Bible is full of errors and not the word of God?

Because it is and the Bible should be seen as it is. Those who claim the Bible is inerrant and written by God are overlooking or making excuses for the errors in the Bible.

If someone were to give you some pills, tell you they will make you live to be 150 years old would I be wrong in telling you that you were being given false information?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2065039#2065039

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Ros,

I will do my best to answer your question...

...To me, when I read something, hear something, see something, etc., sometimes the understanding is just there. Now, I realize that understanding may have come from bits and pieces of information I've gathered along the way, but sometimes it just works like that. My belief in God is just that, my belief. My understanding. When I finally "got it" or believed, it just happened. There was no one thing that made me say I believe.

Hi MA, so your answer to my question is that you can not point to any particular difference between your beliefs and fantasy (I will refrain from saying fairytale and simply say fantasy), but that you have a strong feeling or belief.

I understand what you're saying, and you have a right to stand on belief alone, if you choose, but you must realize that your belief and your feelings alone are not sufficient reasons for others to differentiate your reality from fantasy.

I'm not trying to answer any question for myself. I'm trying to help *you* understand why many of the stories in the bible are identical to fantasy for those of us who don't use belief to measure the world. You feel insulted by our view of your beliefs, but I hope you can see why your beliefs appear totally unsupported and fanciful to us. You offer nothing outside of your own emotional intuition as evidence, and we barely know you. How would you react to someone who made fantastic claims about aliens and sea monsters and only offered their own feelings as evidence.

If you already understand this, then there is no need for further discussion. The evidence you use to support your beliefs will never teach me anything, and the limits I place on evidence will forever confound you.

We view the world from different places.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

I went back and read what Xingu said. I am asking Xingu if perhaps we can say it a little differently or something because if I am misunderstanding what he is asking for I would like to know.

Ros,

I know you are trying to help me, Ros, and it is greatly appreciated. The whole thing is the believers are asked to give evidence and our evidence is our faith, our belief, and the Bible, which we believe to be the Word of God. We believe God and His Word are the ultimate authority, but we are expected to accept things that man has written. So, at the offset our evidence is thrown out of court, so to speak.

While it may be possible for some of us to understand where you are coming from regarding the fantasy idea because most of us have been there once; it seems it isn't possible for some to understand where we are coming from because they haven't been there. Does that make sense? I've been looking for that common ground for discussions about this and have yet to find it. But, I will say this, you sure make it a bit easier. Laughing

0 Replies

It's possible, ma - that 'middle ground' thing. It just seems like it's not, because there are some people who consider it reasonable and even witty to call you other than your screen name, and call your views horse-poop, and such.

There are people (I've even had discussions with 'em, so I know they exist) on these boards who don't "buy" anything about fundie Christianity, but who don't have the need for the punkass little smears.

0 Replies

Thanx Snood. That's encouraging. I know that has to be some middle ground somewhere. I'll keep searching for it.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I know you are trying to help me, Ros, and it is greatly appreciated. The whole thing is the believers are asked to give evidence and our evidence is our faith, our belief, and the Bible, which we believe to be the Word of God. We believe God and His Word are the ultimate authority, but we are expected to accept things that man has written. So, at the offset our evidence is thrown out of court, so to speak.

Hi MA,

All those things you mentioned are not "evidence". They are simply faith and belief.

The frustration I (and I suspect others) feel is when someone offers to provide "evidence", but instead provides only their own belief. And to make matters worse, try to convince us that their belief is "evidence". It's like being bait-and-switched.

If you stated your position by simply saying, I have no evidence, I simply believe, then I don't think you would get much of an argument.

But if you make claims of evidence and logic in an effort to support any belief, such as particular stories in the bible, then you're gonna get hammered by challenges to your "evidence". That's the way evidentiary science works, it challenges evidence and assumption rigorously in order to filter out things like belief and faith which are not considered valid "evidence".

0 Replies

Understood Ros. I should have said, what I consider evidence. But, I have stated that many times. But, there's a middle ground somewhere, I just know it! Laughing

0 Replies

If some do not believe what is written in the bible, why do they feel that it is their indisputable duty to demean those who have such beliefs? Does the name calling and purposeful infantile abuse of ones screen name make them feel superior and provide them with dubious feelings of self worth?

If one has no fear of the unknown, then why does one persist in responding with a fearful attitude? Why try to extravasate the life blood of someone with a faith?

Some find certain posters easy prey and are wont to become incorrigible when they fail to maintain any sort of authority over their intended person of faith.

In short....I agree with what Snood said.

0 Replies

Yeah, I just despise the meanhearted little digs at M.A.

It's completely senseless, and just goes on, and on.

It can't be justified with all the glitzy posturing in the world, and I suspect the party in question knows he's wrong. But he just isn't capable of letting it go, so he'll come up with bogus reasons why she, and I, and anyone else who protests the smallminded punkass digs, deserves such treatment.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Understood Ros. I should have said, what I consider evidence. But, I have stated that many times. But, there's a middle ground somewhere, I just know it!

It's not a two dimensional playing field. There is a middle ground, but we have to step "down" from our specific beliefs to reach it.

The analogy is like people standing on ladders in a field. The view from each ladder is unique, but we can't approach each other without coming down to the field. Coming down means giving up certain assumtions (such as naturalism for the scientists, and faith for the religious). It's not very hard to do, but most people don't even realize they are on the ladder.

The middle ground is a philosophy which recognizes the various belief systems, without adhering to them. There's probably a name for the foundational philosophy, but I don't know it.

Fresco or JLNobody might be able to name it.

0 Replies

Momma wrote:

If I may ask you, exactly what was the purpose of starting this thread because I am sure that you know there is no commonality with science and faith in this respect?

My purpose was to show that science and the Bible are in conflict with one another if the Bible is to be taken literally, as some do. If one is to treat the myths in the Bible as myths and not literal truth then there would be no purpose in this discussion. Unfortunately there are some who can't distinguish between myth and reality. It was meant to be a discussion between those who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and those who don't.

If this discussion disturbs you so much Momma why don't you let it go and get yourself involved in something more to your liking. It's no one's fault but your own if you stay involved and get frustrated. Like they say, if you don't like the show you can always change the channel.

0 Replies

Xingu,

Oh, I'm not frustrated by what you want to discuss at all. I just get frustrated when we get off track and start attacking the way we debate, etc.

I am sure you realize that everything in the Bible is not always meant as literal and it can be very confusing sometimes. I know that things I used to think were literal turned out to be more metaphors, parables, etc., than I realized. That's why one has to study the Bible and not just read it as a novel.

I had asked a question earlier (it may not have been in this thread, I can't really remember) though about Noah's Ark. Recently, something was discovered in Iran that is showing promise of possibly being Noah's Ark. They are testing what they have found and aren't even coming close to saying it actually is Noah's Ark, but I am curious as to what some might think about this if scientists say this definitely is Noah's Ark or it is definite evidence of Noah's Ark.

Though it may prove one of the stories told in the Bible, it still won't prove them all. Do you think if they do find this to be Noah's Ark, it will change anything about how you view the story of Noah's Ark or the Bible in general?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Xingu,

Oh, I'm not frustrated by what you want to discuss at all. I just get frustrated when we get off track and start attacking the way we debate, etc.

I am sure you realize that everything in the Bible is not always meant as literal and it can be very confusing sometimes. I know that things I used to think were literal turned out to be more metaphors, parables, etc., than I realized. That's why one has to study the Bible and not just read it as a novel.

I had asked a question earlier (it may not have been in this thread, I can't really remember) though about Noah's Ark. Recently, something was discovered in Iran that is showing promise of possibly being Noah's Ark. They are testing what they have found and aren't even coming close to saying it actually is Noah's Ark, but I am curious as to what some might think about this if scientists say this definitely is Noah's Ark or it is definite evidence of Noah's Ark.

Though it may prove one of the stories told in the Bible, it still won't prove them all. Do you think if they do find this to be Noah's Ark, it will change anything about how you view the story of Noah's Ark or the Bible in general?

As you may or may not be aware, there are several authors in Genesis. It has been shown that the flood story was a later insertion from a priestly source. The flood story in Genesis, because it was inserted by a priestly source and not an original part of the texts, is most likely derived from an earlier flood myth. It is well-known that there are many, many, flood myths that exist around the world. It is commonly believed that the flood myths originated from the Black Sea flood. Geologists, as far as I am aware, have not found evidence of any other flood in the region. The waters were not raised thousands of feet though. (It would've been devastating and worthy of literature, but the stories have been extremely exaggerated.)

I honestly do not think they have found any kind of boat in the Alborz Mountains. First and foremost, not a single person involved in the expedition was a real scientist. No archaeologists, no geologists, and no historians. The only people that were involved were ministry leaders, business leaders, and lawyers. They claim to have sent a sample to a laboratory in Houston but they refuse to give the name of the laboratory or the names of the scientists involved. When one considers that people will pay $28,000 for holy grilled cheese sandwiches, it does not take any stretch of the imagination to say that such an ark-finding story could generate millions of dollars for the ministry leaders. The ministry leaders are generally not businessmen so having business leaders present shows they intend to exploit the situation. They have lawyers present so they can avoid as many lawsuits as possible. They have excluded scientists so their finding is not subjected to rigorous analyses so they prevent being contradicted. This situation reeks of that familiar smell of an elaborate scam, much like their other scams.

0 Replies

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know