An apology and a clarification

[pioteir]

In thinking about the difference between the way science and religions process information and why the two are incompatible (at least not without compartmentalization), is that no conclusion in science is held as infallible.  Everything is open to change.  Once a scientific conclusion is reached that is "infallible", it can no longer be science.  It shuts the scientific process down.  Science is a process, and while it does come to conclusions, they are always tentative.  Show me evidence that evolution is unquestionably wrong, and I will change my view overnight (credit goes to Richard Dawkins for that statement). 

Reaching scientific conclusions is a long and laborious process.  Religious conclusions are not laboriously concluded.  The conclusions are based on "infallible" assumptions, and the theist works backwards from there.  Science holds many conclusions in high regard, but never to the level of infallibility. 

Instead of investigation, religion substitutes apologetics.  Granted this requires a lot of labor, but the very assumptions regarded as infallible are never tested.  Johan Kepler, a priest, used investigation to attempt to reconcile investigation with religious doctrine, and with disastrous consequences to his personal life.  In his search to explain the infallible nature of the geocentric universe, he proved that it was a fallible infallibility, and he was thrown out of the church and died a pauper.  The two methods of reasoning are incompatible and will never be reconciled.  At best they can be mutually tolerant of each other, but never reconciled.

Can't agree more. Beautifully stated.

By idealogical difference I mean that I still believe in a God despite everything, to you this is illogical, to me it makes perfect sense

Thats an idealogical difference

That's not ideological difference nor is it science. It's just faith.
Also there is no room for faith in a science laboratory. If we assume god is meddling with the dials or holds them still the whole science process falls apart. No scientist conducting an experiment believes in god. After the experiment ends and he's out of the lab it's a different story.

Scientific claims are formulated BECAUSE OF the evidence, not DESPITE everything. That's the all-so-important difference.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I looked it up, and of the entire Dead Sea scroll compilation only about 3% turns out to be Greek, and that writing is dated to about the 3rd century AD and later. The only script we can date to the time of Jesus is in Biblical Hebrew. Also, Jesus (if he existed) almost definitely didn't speak Greek. Greek was quite definitely not the original language of the NT any more than it was the original language of the OT.

So you have proof that the writers of the NT used something beside their native tongue of Greek?

[Brian37]

I hate getting caught up in the "history" of any religion. None of what the claimant of tradition could prove as far as people, places or language used at the time, will ever make magic or invisible beings real. Pointing out literature in history only proves people wrote shit down, it does not make a god real or magic real.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I hate getting caught up in the "history" of any religion. None of what the claimant of tradition could prove as far as people, places or language used at the time, will ever make magic or invisible beings real. Pointing out literature in history only proves people wrote shit down, it does not make a god real or magic real.

It is fun to point out that most of the really good stuff in a Johnny-come-lately like the Abrahamic religions are simply rip-offs of earlier religions.

[aitm]

The author makes a reasonable point, that the Bible should not be read literally.

Nowhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant.

I take exception to this on several levels..
First, it is unfair to apply 21st century knowledge to 1st century superstition. At THAT time the common people believed exactly what the babble said, and the common people believed it for the next 1800 years. So that is really a bullshit statement to make and a poor one as well to use todays knowledge to suggest the people of the past had equal knowledge.

And anyone who claims the babble does not proclaim infallability has not read the piece of shit.  I am not going to spend time right now but we all know that there are several verses that tell us that "not one single word shall be changed" which is a pretty goddamn good  way of saying "hey, this is infallable" or this is "inerrant" eh? The babble is full of that crap. Really?

[Contemporary Protestant]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/10/04/no-the-writers-of-the-bible-did-not-expect-it-to-be-taken-literally-questions-that-haunt/

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_BibleTrue.htm

Aitm,

Why do you keep insisting on a literal interpretation, the first link explains why people then didn't take it literally, and the second confirms my previous statements about how literalism is not main stream, majority of believers do not take every word literally

[aitm]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/10/04/no-the-writers-of-the-bible-did-not-expect-it-to-be-taken-literally-questions-that-haunt/

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_BibleTrue.htm

Aitm,

Why do you keep insisting on a literal interpretation, the first link explains why people then didn't take it literally, and the second confirms my previous statements about how literalism is not main stream, majority of believers do not take every word literally

I plead with every member on this forum to please refer to the link this ...er.....person posted.....really....he claims this is a credible link.....really...... man...

[Contemporary Protestant]

I never said it was credible, I just said it was an explanation, we can debate credibility until we are purple,

.gov = I don't trust the government

.org = I don't trust the organization

.com = I don't trust the author

.net = I don't trust random people on the internet

The main point for sharing those links was to show that I am not making things up, the beliefs I hold are shared by many
Not that people believing it makes it true, however by showing that many people think the way I do refutes your criticisms of me, I do understand the bible (babble) and my beliefs should not be new information

[Hydra009]

.gov = I don't trust the government

.org = I don't trust the organization

.com = I don't trust the author

.net = I don't trust random people on the internet

I don't even

[Contemporary Protestant]

Did you read closely enough? I was making a point that credibility is very debatable, I tend to trust websites that are .edu or .gov, I take everything else with a grain of salt


omigosh I love supernatural, I would have liked a case gif better


(edit) While on the topic, why is it bad for an individual to question the credibility of any source?

[Hydra009]

(edit) While on the topic, why is it bad for an individual to question the credibility of any source?

Because you're doing it based on top-level domain.  You know the expression, don't judge a book by its cover?  If you did that, that'd be a step up.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I don't judge books by their cover, Aitm questioned credibility, (i admit my source wasn't a good one) and I responded with a hypothetical statement, in order to show that arguing credibility is really a waste of energy (besides wouldn't proving my source wrong be a better course of action)

[aileron]

... the first link explains why people then didn't take it literally...

Of course Christians never took the books of the bible literally.  We know that from these events in history:

1) Church authorities never summoned Galileo to the Office of the Inquisition because Christians never took Joshua 10 literally.
2) Church officials never threatened 17th century scientists speculating on the age of Earth with excommunication because they never took the 6,000 ancestry to Adam literally.
3) Christians never burned hundreds of thousands of people for witchcraft because they always understood the bible's warning about witches as poetic or symbolic.

Nope... None of these things happened because Christians understood these writings in the Bible to be figurative.

and the second confirms my previous statements about how literalism is not main stream, majority of believers do not take every word literally

We have science to thank for that not religion, and it was a long, painful journey.

[Contemporary Protestant]

You're using Catholicism to debate with a Protestant

And the Puritans' Salem Witch Hunt has been blown out of proportion

The Puritans also took a literal interpretation of the bible; predestination would be the best example



I think Catholics were wrong to do what they did (hence why I am protestant)

(edit) People during the 2 century CE, understood what metaphors are, Jesus spoke in metaphor,

However during the Dark Ages people were not able to study independently, and the Catholics took advantage of them

[pioteir]

Of course Christians never took the books of the bible literally.  We know that from these events in history:

1) Church authorities never summoned Galileo to the Office of the Inquisition because Christians never took Joshua 10 literally.
2) Church officials never threatened 17th century scientists speculating on the age of Earth with excommunication because they never took the 6,000 ancestry to Adam literally.
3) Christians never burned hundreds of thousands of people for witchcraft because they always understood the bible's warning about witches as poetic or symbolic.

Nope... None of these things happened because Christians understood these writings in the Bible to be figurative.


We have science to thank for that not religion, and it was a long, painful journey.

We don't have to wait for Galileo to see some desert nutbags taking the bible as a metaphor and nothing else. Afterall god told one desert tribe to massacre some other tribes, enslave their women, take their land and posessions BUT they didn't believe it. They just thought it was a lovely metaphor. That's why we don't have the amalekite problem nowadays.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/10/04/no-the-writers-of-the-bible-did-not-expect-it-to-be-taken-literally-questions-that-haunt/

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_BibleTrue.htm

Aitm,

Why do you keep insisting on a literal interpretation, the first link explains why people then didn't take it literally, and the second confirms my previous statements about how literalism is not main stream, majority of believers do not take every word literally

Let's get at least one thing straight. Which parts of the bible (if any) do You take as literally true and which are just metaphors? I'd really like to know. Not that I'm interested, just so when You change Your mind I'll be there to slap You in the face with it.

Oh and I love the bit about witch hunts blown out of proportion. They dodn't kill millions so no biggie. Just some couple thousands or even houndreds of people burnt at the stake for thinking or other sane activities. So yea we should prolly let that one slide.