The bible - fact or fiction???

[AUTaxMan]

And you didn't respond to anything I said in my longer post. A single sentence about me being angry, trying to divert the discussion. Red herring fallacy. You might as well have responded with nothing but "ur stuped lol."

It was a simple question. I meant no offense by it. Would you like me to respond to your statement?

[gatorboymike]

If you wish. I felt like expressing myself in regard to some of the things said earlier in the topic. If you want to respond to that, go ahead. But I'm not going to diverge into me being angry or any other diversion.

[habsheaven]

You must have missed the two links I posted earlier explaining those passages in their context.

I did miss them. Just read the first.

The first link speaks about the treatment of “countrymen” and the protections that should be provided to them. I can understand that. And it sounds reasonable, but it does not address the passages in Leviticus 25:44 "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have-from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves."

I will try to read the second tonight and comment further.

[AUTaxMan]

GBM,

First of all, your tone is very defensive. I am not going to debate you analysis of the scientific process, because it is generally accurate. I have great respect and appreciation for science, and I believe that there is a happy medium where science and religion can co-exist. It requires both sides of the aisle to show a little humility and acknowledge that the other does have a place in this world.

For example, science has all but proven that the world wasn't created in 3 or 4 days, as biblical literalists would have us believe, but that also doesn't mean that since the Bible uses the term "days" to describe creation (to me, an obvious, but because the world wasn't created in six literal days, that the Bible is fallible (i.e., God is allowed to use figures of speech and illustrations too).

On the other hand, science must admit that there are things that simply cannot be proven and that the most reasonable explanation must be the work of a higher being. For example, the big bang. It had to start with something. What created the something from nothing?

I have merely been attempting to illustrate that reliance on scientific theories as our foundation of knowledge of certain things requires no little bit of faith in certain circumstances. I have neither stated nor implied that scientists are a bunch of wackos.

You have to admit that science has become a religion to many. Many people blindly accept what this or that scientific mind (or group of minds) hypothesizes as gospel (pun intended). I am not saying that you are one of these people, but it is a fact.

I take offense to your assertion that no questions are asked with respect to religion and faith, and I especially take offense to your projection on me that I think that I am better than you in any aspect. I never said nor implied that. Also, there are millions of books debating the nuances of Christian theology and faith. We don't sit down and shut up. We discuss, debate, reflect, and share. I certainly am no more guilty of trivializing science than you are of religion.

I also am saddened that you see religion as dogmatic and authoritarian. My wish would be for you to see it as freeing and uplifting.

[gatorboymike]

GBM,

First of all, your tone is very defensive. I am not going to debate you analysis of the scientific process, because it is generally accurate. I have great respect and appreciation for science, and I believe that there is a happy medium where science and religion can co-exist. It requires both sides of the aisle to show a little humility and acknowledge that the other does have a place in this world.

There are scientists who still follow some religion or other. Not having access to their inner thoughts, I don't know how they do it. I don't know how one can claim adherence to doctrines that go against all the work they do in their profession, on both intellectual and visceral grounds. I suppose you could say science and religion can coexist in places where we really don't know what's going on, such as the origin of the universe, where it's a "your guess is as good as mine" situation. The problem is, religion has a track record of not showing much humility or tolerance in those situations.

For example, science has all but proven that the world wasn't created in 3 or 4 days, as biblical literalists would have us believe, but that also doesn't mean that since the Bible uses the term "days" to describe creation (to me, an obvious, but because the world wasn't created in six literal days, that the Bible is fallible (i.e., God is allowed to use figures of speech and illustrations too).

Well, you deserve credit for admitting that. The problem is, there are literalists out there with a political agenda and a vast base of donors.

On the other hand, science must admit that there are things that simply cannot be proven and that the most reasonable explanation must be the work of a higher being. For example, the big bang. It had to start with something. What created the something from nothing?

If you actually read up on the theory, it does NOT say something came from nothing. That's a strawman argument, and anyone who says that's what the theory does say is either ignorant or lying. It doesn't say anything about where the matter in the universe came from or how the event was initiated. It says you can only get back as far as a tiny fraction of time after time t=0, beyond which the physical laws of the universe were fundamentally different from how they have been ever since, and we simply don't know what happened. Some people have hypotheses about that, but we just don't know yet. But it's not the most reasonable explanation to assume there's a higher being. That's an argument from ignorance. That's saying "I can't think of any other way it could have happened, so it must have happened this way." Well, I'm sorry but that's just not a good argument. When you don't know something, the only honest thing to say is that you don't know. Sure, you can guess, but that's all it is: a guess. And as per the previous paragraph, your guess is as good as anyone else's. The problem is, religion wants to say that its guess is some kind of supernatural wisdom from a supernatural being revealed through supernatural means, which we poor primates are just too stupid to ever understand and therefore we should accept without question. You can't do that in science.

I have merely been attempting to illustrate that reliance on scientific theories as our foundation of knowledge of certain things requires no little bit of faith in certain circumstances. I have neither stated nor implied that scientists are a bunch of wackos.

You have to admit that science has become a religion to many. Many people blindly accept what this or that scientific mind (or group of minds) hypothesizes as gospel (pun intended). I am not saying that you are one of these people, but it is a fact.

Well, then those people are doing it wrong. Ask any actual scientist, not some lulu on the internet, and they'll tell you that everything in science is tentative. In other words, "This is the best explanation we have at this time." An ironic twist of history is that the big bang theory was actually given its name by its most vocal opponent, Sir Fred Hoyle. He was a brilliant man, but he was also, unfortunately, a scientific dogmatist. He was a passionate adherent of steady state theory, which has been abandoned.

None of us can be experts on everything. Most of us lack the education and even the capacity to be experts in any field of science. So we do have to rely on experts to figure out things we can't figure out for ourselves. If you want to call that faith, go ahead. But I don't, and the reason why not is because of the religious connotations and denotations of that word. Religionists use the word faith to mean an amalgamation of confidence, hope and trust. But faith is supposed to be blind, and trust is evidenciary. I don't have faith that what any one scientist says is absolute truth. I have trust that the scientific community as a whole will produce more accurate information over time. The difference is unjustified trust vs. justified trust, and this trust is justified because science has a track record of doing just that. Religionists like to imply that any situation in which you have less than 100% certainty, you have 100% faith, exactly as much, of exactly the same type as they have in their god. Well, that is absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as 100% certaintly in science, but neither is there 100% faith.

I take offense to your assertion that no questions are asked with respect to religion and faith, and I especially take offense to your projection on me that I think that I am better than you in any aspect. I never said nor implied that. Also, there are millions of books debating the nuances of Christian theology and faith. We don't sit down and shut up. We discuss, debate, reflect, and share. I certainly am no more guilty of trivializing science than you are of religion.

I also am saddened that you see religion as dogmatic and authoritarian. My wish would be for you to see it as freeing and uplifting.

Well then I apologize if those things I said don't apply to you personally. But they do apply to most of the religionists I've known personally and most of the religious leaders who I've heard from. As for seeing it as dogmatic and authoritarian, that's probably an outside vs. inside deal. I'm sure religionists feel free and uplifted, but I don't see them that way. I think they've just chained their minds to the first idea that feels freeing and uplifting without really caring if it's true or not. People who don't care if their beliefs reflect reality or not are dangerous and intellectually dishonest. They're obligated to deny reality when reality doesn't mesh with their preferred beliefs, and that's why I find religion imprisoning.

[jdawg]

its a story written by a bunch of gullible misguided people...I personally find it ridiculous to give the creation of everything to a person or thing that cant be proven to exist...even harder to believe when it can all be explained by science that we can prove

[sanfran22]

Because you and your comrades are methodically working to tear down the things I value and equate them with the raving lunatics squirming around on church floors babbling nonsense words at the ceiling.

Because you and your comrades are methodically working to subvert the government and the military.

Because you and your comrades are methodically working to turn the public educational system into a brainwashing/recruitment machine for your religion.

Because you and your comrades do terrible things to me and people like me on a regular basis.

Because you and your comrades demand undue respect, deference, consideration and acceptance while offering the exact opposite to everyone else.

But at this moment, because you and your comrades just ignore everything you don't want to hear with the excuse that "Oh, he's angry, that means I don't have to listen to anything he says, woo hoo!"

Hmmmm, alot of that sounds like the "progressive" agenda.

[sanfran22]

its a story written by a bunch of gullible misguided people...I personally find it ridiculous to give the creation of everything to a person or thing that cant be proven to exist...even harder to believe when it can all be explained by science that we can prove

Really? Prove to me a rock is 20 billion years old.....Carbon dating, really?

[gatorboymike]

Really? Prove to me a rock is 20 billion years old.....Carbon dating, really?

This is what happens when you let Kent Hovind do your thinking for you.

[sanfran22]

Because you and your comrades are methodically working to tear down the things I value and equate them with the raving lunatics squirming around on church floors babbling nonsense words at the ceiling.

Because you and your comrades are methodically working to subvert the government and the military.

Because you and your comrades are methodically working to turn the public educational system into a brainwashing/recruitment machine for your religion.

Because you and your comrades do terrible things to me and people like me on a regular basis.

Because you and your comrades demand undue respect, deference, consideration and acceptance while offering the exact opposite to everyone else.

But at this moment, because you and your comrades just ignore everything you don't want to hear with the excuse that "Oh, he's angry, that means I don't have to listen to anything he says, woo hoo!"

And this is what happens when you let ignorance and anger think for you.....Thanks for coming to the conversation though.....