Science confirms the Bible?

[fr0d0]

Please state how then Rhythm. You know how we hate people talking out of their assess around here.

Both are based in vaporous nothing. He's waiting for science to catch up because he has jack shit - you insist that it just must be "purpose" because -you- have jack shit. Both of you wish to excuse the text (clearly you both realize that it needs excusing) - and both of you plan to do so via the same mechanism...bare assertion of ridiculous garbage.

Clear enough?

Got it thanks. You ignore the evidence. Ironic huh?

---

By the way if You noticed the "false" context of my last comment it means people can disprove a truth.

Did I take a stance and support objective truth or did I not comment on that? I did not comment on that. Things are known to be true until shown otherwise. Political mechanisms are not a tool, yours is to put words in my mouth.

Captain obvious yet you complain I didn't spell it or enough for you. Yes, true or false. Both are absolutes and science specifically doesn't deal in absolutes.

Nothing is known to be true in science. You're always making an assumption.

I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm correcting your false assumptions.

In 2000 years people will be laughing at your assumptions, and be declaring you ignorant of the "truth".

---

which btw have no proof either, they're merely axioms that don't even make sense.

Kudos apart from this line. They don't have empirical proofs, but they do have proofs which do make sense.... if we're going to keep on the side of truth

[littleendian]

which btw have no proof either, they're merely axioms that don't even make sense.

Kudos apart from this line. They don't have empirical proofs, but they do have proofs which do make sense.... if we're going to keep on the side of truth

I'm sorry, what makes sense about stoning a woman at her fathers doorstep only because she's not a virgin when getting married? It's Gods will.

If you're going to argue for the bible then you'll have to argue for the whole enchilada, not only for the parts you like. Because if you cherry pick the parts you like then you are implicitly acknowledging that it's just another book. And I would argue that other books contain an even better ratio of good over bad ideas.

[archangle]

I think science does confirm many notions in the bible. Back then they just didn't have the data we have today. Just replace this "god actions" with "natural laws". We see understanding how individuals need some type of external limits placed on them for the good of the group in a social animal. Other than "god's hammer" it fits pretty good I think. For not having the data that we have today.

[fr0d0]

Hey Lil! I have no problem defending and standing by the whole bible. Isn't that off topic here though? You made a claim about lack of evidence. Are you not aware/do you not accept that there is subjective evidence? A whole big collection of books for for starters. Accept them or not.

[archangle]

Kudos apart from this line. They don't have empirical proofs, but they do have proofs which do make sense.... if we're going to keep on the side of truth

I'm sorry, what makes sense about stoning a woman at her fathers doorstep only because she's not a virgin when getting married? It's Gods will.

If you're going to argue for the bible then you'll have to argue for the whole enchilada, not only for the parts you like. Because if you cherry pick the parts you like then you are implicitly acknowledging that it's just another book. And I would argue that other books contain an even better ratio of good over bad ideas.

This is a fundamentalist view point. "all or nothing". We would have to address the personality disorder first. Then decide if the stance is valid coming from said disorder.

[littleendian]

Hey Lil! I have no problem defending and standing by the whole bible. Isn't that off topic here though? You made a claim about lack of evidence. Are you not aware/do you not accept that there is subjective evidence? A whole big collection of books for for starters. Accept them or not.

Roger, there are things that make intuitive sense to me that I cannot prove, so we're in the same boat here. I still think there is objective evidence for/against these things that I believe, I'm just not aware of it. If with "subjective evidence" you refer to something "feeling right", as I assume the bible does for you, then I would argue that subjective evidence still has to hold up to the reality we see before our eyes today, and there just aren't any Gods or blokes walking on water or being born of a virgin in my neighborhood.

[fr0d0]

Not at all Lil. I have good reason to believe what I do, and that is absolutely nothing to do with feelings or any kind of superstition. So that assumption is false. Indeed I wonder how an atheist can justify the contradictions in world views that I know atheists to hold.

Intuition might be interesting to us both but I couldn't seriously use that to justify anything, so don't.

[Silver]

I have good reason to believe what I do.

I have always been of the belief that if it cannot be explained with reason so that absolutely anyone can also reasonably construe the idea as truth, then it is merely something of personal affiliation that cannot in any way be held anywhere near the validity of knowledge.

[Godscreated]

What makes you think that?

Well, they float pretty well.

Not when the oil leaves their feathers and 40 days of rain would and no food would do that.

[Walking Void]

Maybe next time fr0d0 , You thought You could assess my mind and conclude by assuming my "beliefs" or rather my scientific methodology and well... it did not work out for You. But that is OK, because we learn quite a bit from being wrong about things am I right? You know, unless You have some advanced technology that maps out people's thought patterns via the internet, maybe You do know and can judge! Anyways.