Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PTET:
The fact is the available evidence shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that the origins of Isreael provided in the Bible are mythical rather than historical. Thay may change in the future with further finds: but are we to suspend our judgment and the scientific method in the meantime simply because the Bible claims that it is inerrant?

Whatever happened to treating the Bible like any other book? ;>

I appreciate you sending me the URL though I still haven't had the time to read the article so forgive me if my question is answered in it, but what available evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is false? Wouldn't that make the front page of the newspaper? Every non-Christian organization in the world would be trumpeting the exact details of the evidence as opposed to simply saying there is evidence that disproves it and then not providing it.

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Benjamin Franklin:
Do you think there is enough evidence to conclusively disprove the Koran. If we adopt the philosophy that things are true until proven false with regards to religous claims, then we end up with too many conflicting truth claims and this is clearly not a logical/rational position

I have not personally studied the Koran in depth so I cannot definitely answer your question. I would however grant the Bible more credibility based on the nature of it's authorship which is unlike any other book in history. But I definitely would not put the Koran on the same level as the Bible in any moral sense and I hope you wouldn't either in that it promotes the advancement of it's religious doctrines with the use of the sword, something the Bible does not at any point promote or condone.

nogods4me · 07-30-2002, 09:27 AM

no, No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOO, not the "slavery wasn't really slavery back then" arguement again.

Jayhawker Soule · 07-30-2002, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
I would however grant the Bible more credibility based on the nature of it's authorship which is unlike any other book in history.

What do you find unique and compelling about its authorship?

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
...you 'doubt' the general consensus of astrophysics, geophysics, biology, botany, and paleontology, proclaiming this consensus "absurd".

Yes I do stand by my claim that evolution is an absurd because there is no general consensus of any of those fields. One brief example... evolution would suggest that animals "adapted" to their environment to better survive, right? Well take the woodpecker as an example. The method in which it gets its food, by beating it's head against a tree, is probably the most difficult way to get food for any bird, so why would a bird have "evolved" to this method? Certainly hundreds would have died as they pounded their head against a tree until the "shock-absorber" like organ developed. I agree that the idea of evolution in the sense of change (animals growing up and changing) is obviously correct, but the idea of macroevolution simply takes more faith than believing in unicorns and dragons, because using another example, there are so many organs in the human body that are absolutely useless without another organ that compliments it's functions, so you would suggest that these entire systems in our body "evolved" at the exact same time? There simply is no proof what-so-ever to such an idea. Evolutionists say they need the "missing link" to prove it, but in reality they need to find one enormous "chain".

What ideas and places? Proved how? Compiled when?

As far as when and how the Bible is compiled it was discussed earlier, but even giving it a dating of the 4th or even the 5th century still doesn't change anything. The Bible has preceeded several scientific discoveries in it's explaination of the natural world. One quick example would be the statement in Isaiah 40:22 - "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", which clearly seems to suggest an idea of a round earth long before science discovered this fact for itself (and this was written in the OT so it would then date well before Jesus)

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scumble:
Beach - You seem to be admitting that you agree about the inherent uncertainties surrounding the Bible. In effect, what you are saying, as BenjaminFranklin may be pointing at, that you'd rather believe a story that merely hasn't been shown to be false explicitly, than hypotheses based on vast amounts of evidence.
As such, you don't have a rational basis for your Christian belief. You don't have assurance that what you believe is true.
From my point of view, I can't tell why you actually have this belief. Where you brought up to be a Christian?

I appreciate your concern, but BenjaminFranklin is wrong in his assessment of my beliefs. I have studied both sides of this issue and while I may not understand every minor detail about the Bible, I do base my belief off of evidence and facts that to me strongly outweigh the evidence that non-Christians insist disprove the Bible. If anything I think it takes more faith to believe that the Bible is wrong than it does to believe it to be the Word of God, so I do applaud you in your faith, because I'm sorry but I just don't have that much faith.

nogods4me · 07-30-2002, 09:47 AM

say what?

without referencing the Bible ( that is, don't use the Bible to prove the Bible), list for me 5 things that indicate to you that the Bible is true?
and after that show me any real evidence that:

A) A global flood of the approximate proportions of that in the Bible has occurred in the last 6000 years

B) All the various forms of radiometric dating are flawed, not only flawed, but flawed in such a way that they give similar results

C) Other than evolution there is a reasonable explanation for the fossil record.

D) The world is less than 10,000 years old.

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
It kills me when religious people attack humanism. Treating everyone with dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs and their race, yes that sounds evil to me.
How dare us try to make the world a better, more peaceful place to live by treating everyone with dignity, rather than force our religous beliefs on them and convert them to our way of thinking!
Yes, that's a much better way to go.

Who cares if person A believes in the same god as person B, or believes in a god at all?

Society needs to deal with the bad, criminal elements. What does belief or non-belief in a god have to do with that? Atheists are not evil people controlled by Satan. Neither are terrorists. Terrorists are just evil people out for their own gain any way they can get it, and have no regard for humanity.
For someone to start preaching that these people are controlled by Satan, and that God will get them is ludicrous. We need to make things work in the here and now, not concern ourself with some afterlife we have no knowledge even exists.

I agree with you completely that treating everyone with dignity and respect is a great thing and that's not what anyone attacks humanists for (at least I don't). Humanists suggest that everyone's belief is correct and that we shouldn't tell anyone they're wrong, which is perfectly fine except that then you're ignoring logic. Humanists would suggest that person A and person B can both be right because what is right for you is ok and what's right for me is ok. That is basically the idea of there being no absolute truth, so by that same definition Hitler was ok, because he believed it was alright to kill millions of people. Without absolute truth then there is no basis on which we can define our morals and laws and that would lead to anarchy and chaos, not peace and love.

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:
no, No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOO, not the "slavery wasn't really slavery back then" arguement again.

Look at the culture and the facts. I studied it from the perspective of the Roman empire, not from the aspect of Christianity. So unless if our history books are wrong (which they may very well be) then it would certainly suggest it.

Beach_MU · 07-30-2002, 09:51 AM

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Beach_MU ]

07-30-2002, 09:51 AM	#130
Beach_MU Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 71	[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Beach_MU ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2002, 09:27 AM	#123
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	no, No, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOO, not the "slavery wasn't really slavery back then" arguement again.

07-30-2002, 09:47 AM	#127
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	say what? without referencing the Bible ( that is, don't use the Bible to prove the Bible), list for me 5 things that indicate to you that the Bible is true? and after that show me any real evidence that: A) A global flood of the approximate proportions of that in the Bible has occurred in the last 6000 years B) All the various forms of radiometric dating are flawed, not only flawed, but flawed in such a way that they give similar results C) Other than evolution there is a reasonable explanation for the fossil record. D) The world is less than 10,000 years old.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.