Disproving the Bible

[FatAndFaithless]

Wow, was that a banhammer record?

[Minimalist]

You can't disprove you're not a dog,

Um..a dog would never say something as fucking stupid as he does.

[Jackalope]

Wow, was that a banhammer record?

Not even close.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I'd had my way it might have been...lol.

[Tonus]

You can't disprove the Holy Bible. It is not possible by factual possibilities.

Doesn't this mean that every competing religion has the necessary methods to disprove the Bible? It's not as if they're any more concerned with factual possibilities as you are!

[SteveII]

SteveII my friend you look so measured and rational now.

I have no patience for BeenThereDoneThat either. You can have a civil debate about whether it is rational to believe in God or not or whether the Bible is true or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course, and it's wonderful when it happens. So. Where were we?

[Jenny A]

SteveII my friend you look so measured and rational now.

I have no patience for BeenThereDoneThat either. You can have a civil debate about whether it is rational to believe in God or not or whether the Bible is true or not.

I would hope so yes.

[Elskidor]

Wow, was that a banhammer record?

I prefer trolls that are less aggressive and are thick with humor. If you're going to be a troll or poe then try to bring some entertainment to the table. This guy was just an obnoxious prick.

[ManMachine]

My theories on how to disprove Christianity

1. According to modern estimates there are 4200 religions in the world. Lets say, for a moment, that one of these is correct and true. This therefore means that the other 4199 are a load of baloney.

Religions such as Christianity and Hinduism therefore have a 0.001% of being correct even if creationism is how the universe started.

2. If someone today wrote the Bible or other holy scriptures they would be regarded as a madman as almost everything written in them has been disproved by science.

The Earth is not 6000 years old and even the pope has to admit that, billions of years went by after the formation of the planet to when the first recognisable Humans evolved. The Bible states however that it was not billions of years but actually 6 days.

As the Bible was clearly written by someone with zero scientific knowledge of the universe he states 'In the beginning god created the Heavens and the Earth'. We know today that the Earth is an absolutely tiny part of the universe yet the is no detail into how God created all the other billions of planets and stars.

I would continue my arguments but it's getting late and my head is hurting as to how 21st century people believe in such drivel.

Goodnight

1. You would need to define what you mean by 'correct and true'. If that means 'provides comfort for its followers', which could be a valid definition, then they are all 'correct and true'. The purpose of religion is not just to exist, it has many social and personal functions, you need to define which of those you want to use for your classification.

2. Actually science has not disproved much of the bible, it has cast doubt on it. Unless scientists develop a time-machine they will never be able to disprove most of it.

Yes, the 6000 years old concept is odd, but some physicists are beginning to think that spacetime (and hence space and time) is an emergent property of quantum systems and not a universal constant. It is very possible that time - as we perceive it - was not present in the early Universe. This of course doesn't make the creationists right at all, but it could also render the traditional concepts of time in the early Universe redundant.

Science is not about hard and fast truths, it is about establishing a level of understanding through scientific method and empirical evidence that we can build on. Sometimes those concepts take a big hit, the advent of sub-atomic physics in the early 20th century seemed totally at odds with classical physics, and to this day we still haven't unified the two.

MM