Positive Atheism

[rjh4 is back]

When have I stated that specifically because you believe in the Bible and God (i.e. Disagree with me) that you haven't "truly" studied it? Have I actually ever said it? Please point out where I have specifically made that exact statement and I will correct myself.

I didn't say that you specifically stated that. I said that that is what it "sounds" like you are saying. If you were not really saying that I was giving you the opportunity to clarify. Maybe you need to read these posts more carefully.

I am talking about the fact that you simply dismiss legitimate questions and contradictions in the Bible because you've decided the Bible is true. You've said that yourself...in fact...

You have clearly stated you have decided God and the Bible are true and that you ignore evidence that contradicts your presuppositions.

You might want to go back and read what I said again or quote me because I do not think I said that I simply dismiss or ignore evidence. I may very well not accept it with reasons but that is quite different from dismissing or ignoring.

Honest inquiry means you accept the conclusion based on the evidence, not based on what you like and just ignore what evidence you don't like.

You say that as if there is only ever one possible conclusion given a body of evidence. That is seldom the case, especially when one is considering historical science as it pertains to origins where conclusions are always made based on evidence and some assumptions/presuppositions because history is not repeatable or testable in the same way as is done in operational science.

Science bases it's conclusions on the evidence, not the other way around.

And assumptions/presuppositions when we are talking about historical science as it pertains to origins.

How can you possibly determine what is true about the world if you are so dogmatic about what you believe?

I think the question applies equally well to you.

Because good reliable science has shown us that this is how our solar system came to be! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_a...lar_System

In view of the fact that you sound so authoritative in making such a statement I must ask: On what basis have you concluded that science cited on the wiki article is "good" and "reliable"? Did you carry out the science? Did you read all the articles cited? Even if you read them, did you understand them?

Given that you have admitted to not understanding any more than basic physics and that the kind of science in that article probably involves quite advanced physics, I would guess that you did not carry out the science, you did not even read all the articles cited, and even if you read them, you did not understand them (other than possibly the conclusions made). If I am correct, then I doubt you are qualified to make the statement that the science is "good" and "reliable". If that is true then at best you seem qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it. Now I do not think there is anything wrong with that if that is the case. In fact, I think that is where most of us are on most issues. But I do think if that is the case, i.e., that you are only really qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it, you should be honest about it and say so instead of portraying yourself as some sort of authority on such issues.