How do you deal with a religious family?

[genkaus]

No, that's how to "prove" a theory.

A theory cannot be proven.

Again, you're incorrect. An example is the Darwinism theory that evolution is driven by DNA mutations - there are competing theories to this, and when that theory was first invented it had no direct solid evidence whatsoever for it. If it gets disproved it will still be a valid theory, just one that has been disproved.

It did have solid evidence for it - ever heard of Darwin's Finches? And if its disproven, it is not a valid theory.

The ability to develop theories involving the use of little direct evidence is a very important skill.

And developing a theory with no credible evidence whatsoever is impossible.

So I completely disagree with you trying to say that they're "hypothesises", the term is synonymous with theory but the meaning is slightly different.

The difference being that a theory needs credible evidence and a hypothesis doesn't.

In any case, there is valid evidence for the theory that Jesus is resurrected. It's only the quality of said valid evidence that is disputable, not its existence in the first place.

If the validity of the evidence is disputable - as you have argued it is - then there is no valid evidence for the hypothesis of Jesus' resurrection.

But not direct evidence, that's my point. They're using I guess you could say rules about what they've learned and theorised about other things to apply it to new situations and develop theoretical proposals for where humans might have been at a certain time.

That constitutes direct evidence.

No one's making up evidence, no one's making up facts.

The bible is.

It's perfectly relevant. 1. if those groups had not been treated as being valid minority groups then solutions to the issue would never have been developed and enacted on - case in point the USA did not have anywhere near the success of containing the HIV outbreak as we did in the late 80's, but they had exactly the same opportunity. 2. It's a very clear example of acknowledgement of those groups and their ability to tackle such an important health issue when given the ability/support to do so.

Are you arguing that denying minority groups their rights is the right thing because it makes them better?

[Aractus]

A theory cannot be proven.

Obviously, that's why I used quotes.

No one's making up evidence, no one's making up facts.

The bible is.

Right if that's your claim then that's your theory for which you need evidence.

As I just said before, there's no use in polarising yourself without any. The Bible itself doesn't make up facts, rather it records facts alongside inaccuracies and/or legends. The story of the Garden of Eden, for instance, almost certainly pre-dates the Bible and may itself go back thousands of years. It was written down by someone in the Bible, but it wasn't invented for the Bible and hardly anyone would think that it was.

Are you arguing that denying minority groups their rights is the right thing because it makes them better?

No, when did I say that? Those minority groups will always exist whether they have the rights they deserve or whether they don't. For instance the Gay community exists regardless of whether they have equal access to the courts. If there's an issue that affects them, such as sexual health then it's absolutely essential that it is that minority group that is allowed to develop and implement the polices to deal with it (and by policy I mean the methods, not necessarily anything written or legislated) as opposed to people outside that group telling them what they think is best; as it doesn't work. And if you look at the statistics, which I have done now for many years, although it is decreasing (due to being so far away from the initial outbreak), homosexually active gay men still have a much higher rate of SDI testing than the base population. It really needs to be higher though, so some education for the new generation may be appropriate to let them know just how important it is.

[genkaus]

Right if that's your claim then that's your theory for which you need evidence.

No, that's my hypothesis.
The evidence would be all the 'facts' that your bible got wrong.
NOW its a theory.

As I just said before, there's no use in polarising yourself without any. The Bible itself doesn't make up facts, rather it records facts alongside inaccuracies and/or legends. The story of the Garden of Eden, for instance, almost certainly pre-dates the Bible and may itself go back thousands of years. It was written down by someone in the Bible, but it wasn't invented for the Bible and hardly anyone would think that it was.

So, your argument is that people make up facts which are then put in the bible - I've no issue with that statement, since it amounts to the same thing.

No, when did I say that? Those minority groups will always exist whether they have the rights they deserve or whether they don't. For instance the Gay community exists regardless of whether they have equal access to the courts. If there's an issue that affects them, such as sexual health then it's absolutely essential that it is that minority group that is allowed to develop and implement the polices to deal with it (and by policy I mean the methods, not necessarily anything written or legislated) as opposed to people outside that group telling them what they think is best; as it doesn't work. And if you look at the statistics, which I have done now for many years, although it is decreasing (due to being so far away from the initial outbreak), homosexually active gay men still have a much higher rate of SDI testing than the base population. It really needs to be higher though, so some education for the new generation may be appropriate to let them know just how important it is.

So I ask again - how is any of it relevant to the question of minority rights?

[Aractus]

So, your argument is that people make up facts which are then put in the bible - I've no issue with that statement, since it amounts to the same thing.

No, you're either deliberately misinterpreting what I just said, or you're drawing a straw man. There are plenty of facts in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT. The OT has a lot more mythology which pre-dates it.

The NT on the other hand does not. It concerns itself with contemporary and recent events only. So the facts could be wrong if the authors got their facts wrong, but there's not much benefit in it for them to lie or to make stuff up themselves. If they had then the four gospels would have to agree on hardly anything, whereas they almost never contain any actual contradictions. One of the only contradictions they do contain is over who bough the "field of blood", yet it's still linked to the same event - it's hard to argue that one of the writers made it up.

So I ask again - how is any of it relevant to the question of minority rights?

Because if they're recognised then they can achieve things, whereas if they are oppressed and not recognised it makes it more difficult.

[Mr Greene]

An example is the Darwinism theory that evolution is driven by DNA mutations - there are competing theories to this, and when that theory was first invented it had no direct solid evidence whatsoever for it. If it gets disproved it will still be a valid theory, just one that has been disproved.

Incorrect, Darwinism is the theory that evolution is driven by differing survival rates.

[Aractus]

Yeah ok you have me there. Darwinism is one competing view to the DNA-driving model.

[genkaus]

There are plenty of facts in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT. The OT has a lot more mythology which pre-dates it.

And a lot more lies in both.

The NT on the other hand does not. It concerns itself with contemporary and recent events only. So the facts could be wrong if the authors got their facts wrong,

Or simply pulled those out of their asses.

but there's not much benefit in it for them to lie or to make stuff up themselves.

Ha, are you for real? Mundane events of Jesus walking around and giving lectures won't draw in much of a following. But make up a miracle or two and suddenly you have a crowd. THAT would be the benefit.

If they had then the four gospels would have to agree on hardly anything, whereas they almost never contain any actual contradictions. One of the only contradictions they do contain is over who bough the "field of blood", yet it's still linked to the same event - it's hard to argue that one of the writers made it up.

Here's a list of 194 contradictions:
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
I wouldn't call it "almost never".

And liars getting their stories straight is not evidence of its truth. Other possibilities would be that only one person made up those facts and the others copied them. Or there was retroactive corrections.

Because if they're recognised then they can achieve things, whereas if they are oppressed and not recognised it makes it more difficult.

So, its about recognition and achieving things - still has nothing to do with rights.

[Dragonetti]

Back to telling your religious family.

Depends on how well they are going to take it. Some parents will blame themselves, which is not the case. I could care less about 85% of my family. So, I did not care how they would react.

Some will shun you. If you want to maintain the relationship, then keeping quiet will be the work around.

[Aractus]

There are plenty of facts in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT. The OT has a lot more mythology which pre-dates it.

And a lot more lies in both.

All you're doing is creating a needless division. There are facts that everyone, atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jew can agree upon you know.

Or simply pulled those out of their asses.

Okay and where's the evidence for that? Why would they do that? If they were making stuff up themselves then why did the synoptic gospel writers rely on a common written source?

Here's a list of 194 contradictions:
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
I wouldn't call it "almost never".

You are not familiar with the contradictions, I am. Many of the contradictions in that list are nonsense, many are duplicated. For instance the genealogy is counted multiple times. Some are not even based on facts or events but on theology! If that list is your basis then you'd loose just about any argument with a Christian because it's a very poor quality one. It pretty much just lists a bunch of inconsistencies, not contradictions (although there are contradictions are hidden away in there), and you've shown no understanding of where the contradictions are and how to identify them.

Here's an actual contradiction that doesn't appear anywhere in your low quality list:

Mark 5:1: "They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes."
Luke 8:26: "Then they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee."
Matt 8:28: "And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, ..."

It is one of the relatively few examples of an actual contradiction in the NT. It's not just an inconsistency because both can't be true at the same time.

Furthermore, those kinds of inconsistencies in the list you posted are what you would expect to see in different accounts of the same event recorded by different people - there's nothing about them that suggests the authors are liars or inventing the stories as they go as is your claim. Whenever you have more than one account of an event there will always be inconsistencies, and some will be irreconcilably inconsistent (which is when that inconsistency becomes a contradiction).

As I said before the NT contains a number of inconsistencies, but not very many actual contradictions - especially outside of the nativity. Get a better list - a more honest list. Because if you're going to accuse people of lying you can't use a blatantly dishonest list like that one.

[genkaus]

All you're doing is creating a needless division. There are facts that everyone, atheist, Christian, Muslim and Jew can agree upon you know.

We're talking about the lies in there - incidental facts are irrelevant.

Okay and where's the evidence for that?

Made up stuff is evidence of someone making it up.

Why would they do that?

Already told you: Mundane events of Jesus walking around and giving lectures won't draw in much of a following. But make up a miracle or two and suddenly you have a crowd. THAT would be the benefit.

If they were making stuff up themselves then why did the synoptic gospel writers rely on a common written source?

To get their stories straight.

You are not familiar with the contradictions, I am. Many of the contradictions in that list are nonsense, many are duplicated. For instance the genealogy is counted multiple times. Some are not even based on facts or events but on theology! If that list is your basis then you'd loose just about any argument with a Christian because it's a very poor quality one. It pretty much just lists a bunch of inconsistencies, not contradictions (although there are contradictions are hidden away in there), and you've shown no understanding of where the contradictions are and how to identify them.

If you are familiar with contradictions and consider the list to be of low quality then it should be easy for you to refute it. Put your money where your mouth is and then we can move on to the next list.

Here's an actual contradiction that doesn't appear anywhere in your low quality list:

Mark 5:1: "They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes."
Luke 8:26: "Then they sailed to the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee."
Matt 8:28: "And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, ..."

It is one of the relatively few examples of an actual contradiction in the NT. It's not just an inconsistency because both can't be true at the same time.

Gimme a few more.

Furthermore, those kinds of inconsistencies in the list you posted are what you would expect to see in different accounts of the same event recorded by different people - there's nothing about them that suggests the authors are liars or inventing the stories as they go as is your claim. Whenever you have more than one account of an event there will always be inconsistencies, and some will be irreconcilably inconsistent (which is when that inconsistency becomes a contradiction).

That's the best evidence you have of their reliability - that they could be telling the truth and all of them made mistakes about the specifics? That's not much.

As I said before the NT contains a number of inconsistencies, but not very many actual contradictions - especially outside of the nativity. Get a better list - a more honest list. Because if you're going to accuse people of lying you can't use a blatantly dishonest list like that one.

Now who is accusing people of lying?