You won’t get any argument from me on the historical accuracy of the Bible. However, I think it was Joseph Campbell who pointed out that it isn’t that the people who wrote the stories were so stupid as to believe in their infallibility, it is that people today are too stupid to realize that they are just stories meant to explain the life that those people knew.
I just want to make sure that we are aiming our criticism at the intrepretors, not the storytellers.
So true Jewish Fairytales that is it and some people just don’t wish to understand.
It’s not really possible to debate on the validity of the content of the Bible versus scientific theory. I’m not talking about advertising or whatever–but simply that debates can only happen if both parties subscribe to the same method of validating claims.
If a Christian wants to know if something they’ve heard is true, they go to a Priest. The Priest uses his own knowledge of Christian scripture, and perhaps actually pops open the Bible if he needs to, to answer the person’s question. It’s a circle–the the Priest uses Christian methods to answer a question asked by a Christian. Ask a Priest a question about science–he’d use the Christian method.
If a science student wants to know if something is true, they ask their science professor. The scientist uses her knowledge of science and looks at her science books to answer the question. Again, it’s a circle. The scientist uses his own knowledge of the scientific method and books that support the scientific method to answer her student’s question. Ask a scientist a question about religion–she’d use the scientific method to answer it.
They’re both big circle arguments–neither science nor religion finds any support outside its own borders.
[quote=“eccentric”]
It’s not really possible to debate on the validity of the content of the Bible versus scientific theory. I’m not talking about advertising or whatever–but simply that debates can only happen if both parties subscribe to the same method of validating claims.
If a Christian wants to know if something they’ve heard is true, they go to a Priest. The Priest uses his own knowledge of Christian scripture, and perhaps actually pops open the Bible if he needs to, to answer the person’s question. It’s a circle–the the Priest uses Christian methods to answer a question asked by a Christian. Ask a Priest a question about science–he’d use the Christian method.
If a science student wants to know if something is true, they ask their science professor. The scientist uses her knowledge of science and looks at her science books to answer the question. Again, it’s a circle. The scientist uses his own knowledge of the scientific method and books that support the scientific method to answer her student’s question. Ask a scientist a question about religion–she’d use the scientific method to answer it.
They’re both big circle arguments–neither science nor religion finds any support outside its own borders.
/quote
i would ask a jedi master[/quote]
Is science a Religion?
And you be dead wrong about that. Science uses observation and verification to reach its conclusions, and is willing to abandon those conclusions in light of newer, more accurate information, all things religion does not do. Religion offers you the “believe it or not” system, then offers lies and what we now know to be false information from a time of ignorance as its proof of accuracy. When we check up on religions claims, they all fail in accuracy both physically and historically and require grandiose assumptions to understand.
Every single device in your home, and in your life are products thanks to the scientific method, it has been proven to be the most accurate way to understand any system so dont even try to compare religion as its equal but opposite way of knowing. Religion can give you nothing to improve your understanding of who and what you are, what this cosmos is and everything in it, its more like some intellectual plague the human race has and the sooner we are rid of it the better.
ChrisJ, I disagree. I’m not gonna bother arguing against the potshots you took against religion. However, regarding your comment that what I said is incorrect, let’s look at what you said.
So, science uses the scientific method? I’d agree with you there. What I said is that there is no support outside of science for the scientific method. Who says that empiricism is king?
Again, you’re just giving a very meat n’ potatoes definition of the scientific method. You’re proving my point.
Religion (religion here only applying to those that believe in one or more deities) doesn’t use the scientific method? Yes, to a certain extent. Religion doesn’t adapt and refine itself over time? No, not true.
And yea, TranscendingRationality, I’d say that science is itself a religion. I think there are certainly aspects of science that require just as much faith as religion does. How about the scientific theory that there are an infinite number of alternate universes to our own–does that really take any less faith than belief in a dude that turned water to wine?
I’d like to know how else you would support a conclusion.
A Jewish person concludes that there is a God based on his or her readings from the Torah.
Let’s be clear–I’m not saying that the scientific method is inferior to religion, or that religion is inferior to science. I’m also not arguing that the scientific method isn’t widespread. I’m simply pointing out that there is no way to support the scientific method without eventually applying the scientific method.
It’s a circle argument, and therefore fundamentally flawed. Same goes for the three major monotheistic religions.
Correct, and science has concluded the torra and the bible to be bullshit so it can never give you anything to have confidence in, just the “believe it or not” option. I find that form of reasoning to be foolish.
EVERYONE!!! watch religulous!!!
Science is based on observation and replicatible experiements. Religion is based on faith.
Howbout discussing this without using expletives and words like ‘foolish’?
But you’re still not following me. I’d love to see some proof for your claim that “science has concluded the torra and bible to be bullshit”–a document in a scientific journal, perhaps? Even so, any conclusions that science makes about religion are made by applying the scientific method, which is a circle, which makes it flawed. Not wrong, per se, but flawed.
Yes–and simplified: Science is based on evidence that science considers acceptable. Religion is based on evidence that that religion considers acceptable.
Religion and/or belief in all things religious is a crutch, for those who are unable or unwilling to deal with life and death on its own merits. It does, with the fanatics, become almost an addiction. I have learned about true hypocrisy, from those who claim to be of the “faith” and I am truly disgusted. There are, of course, exceptions, the people who are are just truly beautiful human beings whether they are religious or not. I am not of any faith, I am an agnostic, amd I have been torn apart by the religious faction, you know, the ones who claim to be non-judgemental and who “Love” everyone regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof and I say, Bullshit!!! They throw the word “love” around like “Have a nice day” and it sickens me for they know nothing of the true meaning of the word at all…
Hallelujah!!
Each to his own. The scientific method is independent of the belief system of a person, that is, an atheist or a person of faith can perform the same experiment and achieve results that can be replicated. I prefer logic and the scientific method to superstition.
Directed towards ChrisJ: You’re still not addressing anything I’m saying–you’re just ranting about things you don’t understand.
Found “Religulous” documentary informative and funny too. More from MAHR.
Interesting link I found A long time ago. 
clean:-D
Politeness counts! Thanks for listening.
Ohh I understand perfectly,thats bullshit. You need to read my previous posts, its you that isnt addressing anything, its why you keep talking about this circle jerk. Why dont you address the paradox of god giving us freewill yet he knows the choices we make anyways, he already knows the future so your choices were predetermined, the freewill aspect is just a mere illusion we have. Your just like all the rest of the christians, you talk in circles while avoiding the hard questions. I suspect its because you dont know how to answer and thats because there is no answer that can make sense, they are opposing facts, its one or the other, the two cannot exist.
Now brace yourself, I’m about to detroy the flood story and Noah so go get some tissue and something to bite down on, cause I havnt even got started yet. And I think its you that is ranting about things you dont understand but its good of you to take up the challenge. Why is the flock not helping you theyre all so silent…oh yeah, its because of the hard questions, nothing scares off a pack of christians like some hard questions and a request of evidence, why is that? :-D