RELIGION VS SCIENCE - the wrong discussion!

[ReasonToFollow]

Ok finally I can see where you're coming from KTR. Now you're entirely focused on the Bible so we can have a proper discussion for once instead of personal threats as I saw them before. If you see me as 'preaching' then so be it. Let the hypocrite be called a preacher too in that case, preaching that life is meaningless and without God. I'm telling you know, from now on all judgement about me I'll ignore and not even bother responding to it.

What I am here to do is to show other people who come here and read these damned things that the theist consistently cannot mount a rational, cohesive, and convincing argument for their theism. And they have been unable to do so for quite a few thousand years.

What I can't stress enough is that Christianity is a historically based religion. The resurrection of Jesus and the birth of the first Christians is something that pretty much happened simultaneously. Had Jesus not been resurrected then the GOSPEL i.e. Good News wouldn't have spread hence I wouldn't be here today calling myself a Christian because the first Christians wouldn't have given birth to OTHER Christians. I really don't know what else to tell you. HISTORY.

"You are reading it out of context"

KTR: "I murdered someone last night..."
RTF: "What?! That's horrible!"
KTR: "...In my dreams"
RTF: "oh"

Context is everything. Quoting half verses and the like is deceiving and unfair to the Word. Maybe that's why the person that has ACTUALLY read the Bible sees why it's logical instead of the one that HASN'T entirely? It's like me calling you a murderer because you said that's what you did. You KNOW it wasn't actually a murder but me being blind to the rest of the story makes it so and apparently that's proof enough??

"It's an analogy!"

This is of course THE biggest 'problem' with the Bible and something that should be looked at very seriously. I completely agree with you that some Christians blur the lines of what's real and just an analogy. Something you have to know about me is that I was raised Catholic but it never did anything for me because personally I see the Catholic church as powerless. I feared God instead of understanding that He loved US first and forgave our sins. I've only just recently come to terms what it really means to be a Christian and therefore have started from zero. I'm still studying the NT in depth and haven't touched the OT yet. So as for the whole 'analogy' discussion I guess I'm still figuring it out for myself. Sorry that I can't discuss this point properly with you!

"It's a miracle, you have to accept miracles!"

This pretty much speaks for itself really. There's some people that turn to Christ BECAUSE a Christian healed them of something and that was a testimony of God's power and love for them. I think this point is more of a personal experience kind of thing. I healed my friend of a rare fever that the doctor said would last around a month. I prayed for him 3 days after he got it. Do I expect you to believe me? No. If you saw it with your own eyes would you believe then? Well, who wouldn't? Logic will tell you that there must be SOME sort of correlation between the person praying and that disease leaving the body straight after.

"You must have faith!"

Well OBVIOUSLY. It's no good if I sit here whipping out verses if you don't have faith to see that God did that. Hence why I've only been talking from a historical p.o.v.

Faith literally means 'to see what God has already done'. People that say Christians are imbeciles for believing through 'blind faith' are absolutely naive. There must be SOME reason as to why I believe? I have 'seen' what God has done through the Word and to me it's logical. Faith is pretty much a different set of eyes that you use to see God and the birth of that faith is by default when you realise Jesus died for you. That's why blabbing about verses to you isn't going to do anything because if you haven't built your faith on the fact that Jesus died for you then how is me telling you anything else that leads from that useful?

Remember, you claim the bible is somehow an important document for our well being. In that case, it cannot err if it is from a divine god-- there can be utterly no contradiction-- even the slightest, smallest error brings it all crashing down

Yep, and from what I've read so far so good.

[ReasonToFollow]

humanguy:

I'd be more than happy to answer those questions for you. Thanks for being polite.

Here's my first question. What exactly do you mean by science not being able to touch the existence of Jesus? The assertion makes no sense to me.

So to me it doesn't make sense to use the building blocks of science, EXPERIMENTS, to see whether someone existed. Show me with an experiment that Abraham Lincoln existed. Illogical right? Now, why do I say this with Jesus? Well let's assume there is a god. It means that Jesus actually WAS God then. So therefore it can't be disproved through science that there is a god because science can't touch his existence! If you disprove that God exists then it means Jesus can't be a person. Well that's when you get in trouble with historians because Jesus was most definitely here on Earth. So the question really is was he divine or not and that's the choice everyone has to make for themselves. I just want to show people that they can't wait for the latest science discoveries because that won't get them any closer to knowing if there is a god. Jesus has come and gone. The evidence is there and now you choose.

Second question. Where do you get the idea that someone would turn to science for an answer to there being a God?

It's happening all the time. There's even debates between churches and the science community and they battle it out to disprove each other. I don't remember where this takes place exactly but I know it definitely happens. Like I said in my original post, I saw this guy on YouTube post a comment on a historical video of Jesus. He literally explained what an experiment is and that's all he said. So that implies that he believes science can disprove there being a god.

Hope I have made myself more clear =)

[Aaron]

Does anyone else remember a while back when a member of this forum created a second account and pretended to be someone else? It started with a "c" I think, I can't remember, I could go look it up but I'm too lazy, anyways ever since then I haven't been able to shake my paranoia that it wouldn't happen again... but I'm probably just paranoid.

[humanguy]

Here's my first question. What exactly do you mean by science not being able to touch the existence of Jesus? The assertion makes no sense to me.

So to me it doesn't make sense to use the building blocks of science, EXPERIMENTS, to see whether someone existed. Show me with an experiment that Abraham Lincoln existed. Illogical right?

It doesn't make sense to me, either, which is why I asked you. Thank you for not answering.

Second question. Where do you get the idea that someone would turn to science for an answer to there being a God?

It's happening all the time. There's even debates between churches and the science community and they battle it out to disprove each other. I don't remember where this takes place exactly but I know it definitely happens. Like I said in my original post, I saw this guy on YouTube post a comment on a historical video of Jesus. He literally explained what an experiment is and that's all he said. So that implies that he believes science can disprove there being a god.

Hope I have made myself more clear =)

Debates between churches and the science community? You'll have to be more specific. Yet you also say that you don't remember where all this takes place but you know it definitely happens because you saw "this guy" on YouTube.

You've made yourself perfectly clear. Thank you, Reason to Follow.

[ReasonToFollow]

Haha.. Alright then. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by being blind to what I said. Read my post to KTR where I talked about faith. Quote only half my paragraph if you want but I justified myself.

I'm surprised you haven't heard the classic debate of science vs. religion before. Apparently the rest of the people that have joined in on my original post have. What planet do you live on?

[humanguy]

Haha.. Alright then. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by being blind to what I said.

Blind to what you said where? What is it you said that you think I'm being blind to?

And what planet I live on is none of your business.

So. Tell us a little about yourself, Reason to Follow.

[Keep The Reason]

Does anyone else remember a while back when a member of this forum created a second account and pretended to be someone else? It started with a "c" I think, I can't remember, I could go look it up but I'm too lazy, anyways ever since then I haven't been able to shake my paranoia that it wouldn't happen again... but I'm probably just paranoid.

I got/get the feeling of RTF being a sock puppet for someone else too. But then it's probably more of a twist on the Poe Law. It is effectively impossible to tell the difference between a Fundie theist debater and someone pretending to be a Fundie theist debater doing it for fun.

What's particularly funny is that even you, Aaron, aren't quite convinced this guy's for real!

[Keep The Reason]

So to me it doesn't make sense to use the building blocks of science, EXPERIMENTS, to see whether someone existed. Show me with an experiment that Abraham Lincoln existed. Illogical right?

Oh for fuck's sake, we have his body and can dig him up and code his DNA.. We can match his wounds with the accounts of his death and we can show he is related to his mother and father whose bodies are also buried but within reach.

Forensics is an elegant and complex science for chrissake, and has been used to solve countless crimes and verify the identity of people all the time. Just today a long lost victim of serial killer John Wayne Gacy was identified after 30 years.

How dim can your bulb possibly be???

[Aaron]

So to me it doesn't make sense to use the building blocks of science, EXPERIMENTS, to see whether someone existed. Show me with an experiment that Abraham Lincoln existed. Illogical right?

Oh for fuck's sake, we have his body and can dig him up and code his DNA.. We can match his wounds with the accounts of his death and we can show he is related to his mother and father whose bodies are also buried but within reach.

Forensics is an elegant and complex science for chrissake, and has been used to solve countless crimes and verify the identity of people all the time. Just today a long lost victim of serial killer John Wayne Gacy was identified after 30 years.

How dim can your bulb possibly be???

Well this is actually an interesting point. What would have happened if Lincoln would have been kidnapped by the Confederates or something. There's no reason we shouldn't believe he existed, even though we wouldn't have his DNA or his skeleton, i.e. no repeatable experiments.

While I'm thinking about this I also think its the same with the Bible. I read a lot of news. 50 years from now if I were to go back and read these same articles would they somehow have lost some of their truth? No. They are still the same words I would have read 50 years ago. I don't see how the same couldn't have happened with the Bible. I know you, KTR, think the Bible is weak evidence for Christianity, but the more I think about it the more I have to say its really good evidence. Anyways that's a whole nother discussion...

[Keep The Reason]

Well this is actually an interesting point. What would have happened if Lincoln would have been kidnapped by the Confederates or something. There's no reason we shouldn't believe he existed, even though we wouldn't have his DNA or his skeleton, i.e. no repeatable experiments.

While I'm thinking about this I also think its the same with the Bible. I read a lot of news. 50 years from now if I were to go back and read these same articles would they somehow have lost some of their truth? No. They are still the same words I would have read 50 years ago. I don't see how the same couldn't have happened with the Bible. I know you, KTR, think the Bible is weak evidence for Christianity, but the more I think about it the more I have to say its really good evidence. Anyways that's a whole nother discussion...

The problem is that you theists create and ignore a whole different layer of criteria when it comes to the bible. On the one hand, it's a divine document, yet on the same hand, you compare it to mere mortal analogies. Whether or not Lincoln existed is merely an issue of history. If we have his body or not, there's no "eternal consequence" to the question. As it happens, we have LOTS of evidence that Lincoln existed, including his dead remains. But even if we didn't that doesn't mean your eternal disposition is "at risk" .

You claim the bible DOES embrace such a consequenctial disposition, hence we have to agree the criteria regarding it must be of higher important than, say, whether Teddy Roosevelt had a mustache or not.

And the bible does not pass any kind of higher criteria, even if it is revered and "old". Being old and revered doesn't mean it's TRUE. The bible makes many claims that are merely assertions, most of which are categorically hearsay about what someone else is claimed to have said and done.

Now,we can say, "Well, Aristotle never wrote anything and we base what we know about him on Platos writing of him and that's hearsay too, right?". Well, yes, but so what? If Aristotle is purely fictional but we think he existed, well, we're wrong. So what-- no big deal.

But according to you theists, being wrong about Jesus is a very serious matter. So you guys have upped the ante, but you keep the standards for validity to as low a level as possible.

The fact is, the more recent an event, the more accurate it's provenance will be. It's easier to prove Ronald Reagan existed than it is to prove Lincoln existed, and it's easier to prove Lincoln existed than it is to prove Jesus or Aristotle existed. But that's not the fault of science (actually, it's bad timing on Yahweh's part). So RTF's dopey claim that "science can't prove Lincon existed" is not only wrong, but it's irrelevant since science doesn't have to "disprove Jesus". If theists want a solid argument, then you have to PROVE JESUS EXISTED. And the bible doesn't do that in any meaningful, corroborative way. It merely asserts he existed, and that's that.

And that's not good enough.

[ReasonToFollow]

humanguy:

Blind to what you said where? What is it you said that you think I'm being blind to?

Read my entire paragraph instead of chopping it in half.

And what planet I live on is none of your business.

Then please change your name to 'alienguy' as you're being misleading.

That whole double identity thing is ridiculous! You actually think I'm humanguy and I'm making ^^^ those sorts of arguments?! YOU'RE KIDDING.

The fact is, the more recent an event, the more accurate it's provenance will be. It's easier to prove Ronald Reagan existed than it is to prove Lincoln existed, and it's easier to prove Lincoln existed than it is to prove Jesus or Aristotle existed. But that's not the fault of science (actually, it's bad timing on Yahweh's part).

Bad timing on God's part? You would think that something in history with this kind of gravity would be well kept, which is where aaron is absolutely right. Why should a piece of literature change after 50 years? There were also so many Bibles floating around that it was impossible to make a change because you could tell straight away it was a fake. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls?? They prove the Bible hasn't gone through 2000 years of chinese whispers.

If theists want a solid argument, then you have to PROVE JESUS EXISTED.

I just love it how Jesus gets special treatment! Oh yeah Buddha and Mohammed were people but as for Jesus.. GIVE ME ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE HE EXISTED. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PAINT A PICTURE OF HIS FACE AFTER I'VE SEEN THIS EVIDENCE. The question in his day was whether he was divine or not, hence why he got crucified because of his claims to have divinity. It's been taken for granted he was a person these days. If you're leading this discussion in that direction then YOU'RE sinking mate.

[ReasonToFollow]

KTR, make sure this Christmas you go tell everyone they're celebrating the birth of someone non-existent. Hypocrites.

[Dr Mundo]

KTR, make sure this Christmas you go tell everyone they're celebrating the birth of someone non-existent. Hypocrites.

OR some are celebrating a time when they get together with Friends and family and share food, good time, and the pleasure of each others company, as well as presents. You could celebrate the life of fictional characters regardless. If people wanted to party and have a good time for the birth of Hercules, what problems would you have with that? So long as they are not harming others who don't want to be harmed and are being responsible I say, Celebrate what you want, Believe what you want, And have fun doing it.

side note after reading your posts and the tone you take with them, I have to say... I'm not a fan.

[ReasonToFollow]

Dr. Mundo so you're telling me the BIGGEST celebration that involves just about EVERY country is all based on a few dudes that decided to have some family time and praise a fictional character? Let's celebrate the birth of Caesar with the same intensity. He was just an average Joe like Jesus.

Wait maybe the generations started celebrating Jesus over others because he actually meant something to humanity? Just maybe that's why the celebration has lasted 2000 years. Just maybe...

I suppose Easter is a celebration of the same fictional character as well as a time to indulge in chocolate because we can?

Not a fan of my tone? This is what one of your own had to say to that:

You don't like it? Then leave. I'm not here to make your stay here comfortable and happy crappy. I'm here to shred your arguments to pieces, to counter your views, and to expose your model as nonsense. If you don't like it, well, too bad.

[ReasonToFollow]

Also, KTR, you never commented on the 4 typical points Christians bring up. I gave you my reasoning as to why they bring them up.