62 replies to this topic

[Grizzly]

If you arbitrarily reject parts of it, how can you assert that the rest of it is true?

I can easily reject parts of science and still assert that the rest is true just as I can with religion. I don't even like to define myself as Presbyterian Christian which is what I was raised into but don't necessarily agree with all their beliefs and traditions. In fact, I'm not certain I agree with many of their beliefs. But moreover, I am certain that god exists more than anything.

[fruglemonkey]

There are 'interpreters' of the "original" bible.

I BELEIVE that Christian/Catholic/Protestant SUPPOSEDLY has the most direct version [least interpreatation included] version of the bible...

With Mormons having the FURTHEST.

And how can you be sure that these 'interpreters' don't apply any bias? When you take historical evidence and have several people interpreting it several times, you end up with a version that may be wildly different from what it should be.

[Grizzly]

I can easily reject parts of science and still assert that the rest is true just as I can with religion. I don't even like to define myself as Presbyterian Christian which is what I was raised into but don't necessarily agree with all their beliefs and traditions. In fact, I'm not certain I agree with many of their beliefs. But moreover, I am certain that god exists more than anything.

I do also recognize that the bible is not the direct word of gods. There are many books and perspectives censored from the bible during its creation. The history channel really delves deep into that kind of shit. Mary magdalene anyone?

And how can you be sure that these 'interpreters' don't apply any bias? When you take historical evidence and have several people interpreting it several times, you end up with a version that may be wildly different from what it should be.

That's the thing, you're never sure of anything. So I feel you have to approach religion with an open mind just as you have to do with science. You can't be skeptics nor gullible, but rather find a balance in between. And it's a bit ridiculous that people are born into religion and mostly accept that. I feel people should make a more educated approach to their beliefs. That's one of the practices of religion I disagree with.

[Teddy]

And how can you be sure that these 'interpreters' don't apply any bias? When you take historical evidence and have several people interpreting it several times, you end up with a version that may be wildly different from what it should be.

That's why they call it 'faith' and not 'fact'

You have to BELEIVE in it.

People confuse Belief in FAITH and Beleif in FACT.

FAITH is belief in something uncertain.

Beliving something that is a fact is not 'smart faith', it is just your logical side telling you that since it is proven, it is smarter to say 'oh, i think it exists' [equivalent at saying you beleive in it]

[fruglemonkey]

"...This whole concept of 'Faith', of believing in something that isn't barking there, was invented by a Man to cover up the cracks in the 'Christianity' he cobbled together with the Romans."

That's the thing, you're never sure of anything. So I feel you have to approach religion with an open mind just as you have to do with science. You can't be skeptics nor gullible, but rather find a balance in between. And it's a bit ridiculous that people are born into religion and mostly accept that. I feel people should make a more educated approach to their beliefs. That's one of the practices of religion I disagree with.

Oh, but I am a skeptic. For example, if you had told me that we had men on the moon, or that we could remove parts of the skull off a man, and still have him living, i would brush it off. But, because there have been observations and results and evidence of it have happened, i accept it.

[Sweeney]

There are 'interpreters' of the "original" bible.

I BELEIVE that Christian/Catholic/Protestant SUPPOSEDLY has the most direct version [least interpreatation included] version of the bible...

With Mormons having the FURTHEST.

But you don't think the global flood was real, or believe in a literal six day creation, do you?

If not, how do you know the rest of it isn't just "metaphor" too?

I can easily reject parts of science and still assert that the rest is true just as I can with religion. I don't even like to define myself as Presbyterian Christian which is what I was raised into but don't necessarily agree with all their beliefs and traditions. In fact, I'm not certain I agree with many of their beliefs. But moreover, I am certain that god exists more than anything.

But the evidence for different parts of science comes from a vast variety of sources, whereas all the evidence for a christian god comes from the bible.
They're hardly comparable.

So how can you reject parts of the bible, and still say the rest is valid?

[Teddy]

"...This whole concept of 'Faith', of believing in something that isn't barking there, was invented by a Man to cover up the cracks in the 'Christianity' he cobbled together with the Romans."

Oh, but I am a skeptic. For example, if you had told me that we had men on the moon, or that we could remove parts of the skull off a man, and still have him living, i would brush it off. But, because there have been observations and results and evidence of it have happened, i accept it.

And all I am saying is that I have Faith in my religion

[MrBubbles?]

I would have to go with science(evolution) not religion.

[Akira]

Excuse me for a second while I read everything....

-head explodes-

Okay, that was a little rough.

With most "RELIGION V. SCIENCE RAAARGH!" discussions, it starts as reasonable, then religion gets backed into a corner and performs the desperation move:

Faith.

Faith is belief in something that you have -no- proof for. You can't prove it exists, or explain why, so you just -believe- in it.

....

....That can't go against science! EVER!

Look; science -lacks- the whole 'well, just -believe- in this' part, and if religion is nothing -but- 'just -believe- in this', then you are trying to compare apples to....dragons.

You can't bring the Bible up as historical evidence. You can't. It's the first documentation, and the -only- documentation, of God's actions. Everything after that is just Christian fodder.

Do you want to know why we can't use the Bible as historical evidence? I'll use my 'Redwall' theory for this.

There is a series of books called 'Redwall', all of which explain that there is an abbey, called Redwall abbey, that houses various mice, otters, moles, hedgehogs, and the occasional hare and/or badger. They all depend upon the spirit of their founder, Mathias, to guide them through troubled times and occasionally show them where weapons are hidden to defend the abbey.

Based on these books alone, we have enough historical evidence to -prove- the existence of Redwall abbey, and all of its' talking animals.

Now, you might say 'but that is -clearly- a work of fiction, just ask the author!' Okay; we're pretending that these were discovered 2000 years into the future, and the people who find the series don't know what the author intended, nor that the series was fictional. Would that be evidence enough for them to drop everything and seek out these talking animals?

Furthermore, you can't take the Bible, proudly state 'yup, this right here proves God without a shadow of a doubt', and then say 'oh, wait wait! But not -that- part, that part is just -metaphorical-!'. That's saying, essentially, that God threw a few curve balls in there to catch people that question him and bar them from heaven. Why, IN THE ONE AND ONLY BOOK THAT GOD APPARENTLY DECIDED TO WRITE, would he decide to put in anything besides the ultimate truth? Why pretty it up when that shit is useless and, ultimately, causes a bunch of people to misinterpret the Bible?

And, as has been said before, pretty much -every- religion has a holy book. So....they all have the EXACT same amount of evidence. Okay; give me MORE proof. PROVE to me why it is that the Bible is right and all of these other books, with the SAME amount of evidence, are clearly wrong.

....RAWR o.O I did a lot of all-caps, haha.

[Grizzly]

But you don't think the global flood was real, or believe in a literal six day creation, do you?

If not, how do you know the rest of it isn't just "metaphor" too?
But the evidence for different parts of science comes from a vast variety of sources, whereas all the evidence for a christian god comes from the bible.
They're hardly comparable.

So how can you reject parts of the bible, and still say the rest is valid?

Because I choose to. There's really nothing more to it. The bible isn't the direct word of a god, it's collection of books concerning him. I choose to believe some, others I don't. That's why there's different branches of christianity for those who believe in god but with different sets of beliefs and many have their own bibles. I feel I havn't explored enough religions yet or have enough historical knowledge to tell you which I believe in most. But for now, yes, I don't believe in parts of the bible.

With most "RELIGION V. SCIENCE RAAARGH!" discussions, it starts as reasonable, then religion gets backed into a corner and performs the desperation move:

As is the case with most debates here.. like a spiraling funnel. You type a 500 word post, and someone refutes one sentence of it and thinks that your argument is now debunked. And then you try to refute one of their points to redeem your credibility and it goes on and on.

Consequently, some try to debunk every single sentence you type, and in response, blah blah. blah blah.

[Akira]

As is the case with most debates here.. like a spiraling funnel. You type a 500 word post, and someone refutes one sentence of it and thinks that your argument is now debunked. And then you try to refute one of their points to redeem your credibility and it goes on and on.

Consequently, some try to debunk every single sentence you type, and in response, blah blah. blah blah.

Yup. Typically, I try to make at least two points when I say something in a discussion, and sometimes that gets too long for people with short attention spans. Of course, I don't doubt that it's well within your capabilities to read a 500 word post (it sounds dreadfully long when you state it by word count, but if that is really too much for you to handle, then I do worry about what your research papers must look like) you would just prefer to try and be snappy instead of trying to make this a debate.

Remember; when you don't have an answer, it always looks good to bash someone for writing a lot.

[tastyphoxette]

Look; science -lacks- the whole 'well, just -believe- in this' part, and if religion is nothing -but- 'just -believe- in this', then you are trying to compare apples to....dragons.

You can't bring the Bible up as historical evidence. You can't. It's the first documentation, and the -only- documentation, of God's actions. Everything after that is just Christian fodder.

Do you want to know why we can't use the Bible as historical evidence? I'll use my 'Redwall' theory for this.

And, as has been said before, pretty much -every- religion has a holy book. So....they all have the EXACT same amount of evidence. Okay; give me MORE proof. PROVE to me why it is that the Bible is right and all of these other books, with the SAME amount of evidence, are clearly wrong.

....RAWR o.O I did a lot of all-caps, haha.

QFT: Edited for shorter post.

I agree with everything here. I don't think you can really compare Religion to Science... because the basis for them are different. Relying on fact, relying on faith... both are different.

Where they sometimes cross is in Scientific theory. Usually there's evidence backing the theory, but it's just a Theory because it hasn't be absolutely proven yet, or absolutely disproven.

I do belong to the masses of Christians out there. I have faith in my chosen religion, because it just feels more right to me than anything else does. I guess there's no real reason why. Probably because since I was a little girl in the south, I'd been raised to believe in Jesus. Maybe it's just because I love getting Christmas Presents. For whatever reason, I have faith... but I also tend to question a lot and when I was small I got in trouble a lot for asking the wrong questions in church... So I stopped going. I've also really jumped in to the sciences in college. I took so many, and I'm so fascinated by finding out how things work...

I can't understand how people can take the Bible at face value. It's a collection of stories meant to teach you how to live your life. Many religious books are just there to show you how to live, how to be nice to your neighbor, etc. I chose which religion to be because it just felt right to me. If you feel right being Muslim, Jewish, Christian, a Hinduist, an Atheist, etc, then that's what you should do.

I know a lot of the reasons why I hold onto my faith are related to comfort. I'd like to think that the loved ones I've lost are happy and floating free somewhere with someone to take care of them and give them cookies and milk... So there you go. And it's just fun believing in Angels and Demons.

I don't usually like going in to religious discussions, because it always ends up being about trying to make someone else think the way you do, and I think that's ridiculous. I'll tell you what I think, I'll listen to what you think, but I'm not about to change my mind because someone tells me to, and neither should you.

[Grizzly]

I don't usually like going in to religious discussions, because it always ends up being about trying to make someone else think the way you do, and I think that's ridiculous. I'll tell you what I think, I'll listen to what you think, but I'm not about to change my mind because someone tells me to, and neither should you.

That usually doesn't happen though. I get involved in debates because I find them interesting. People once in a while to offer great arguments and supports that widen your horizon of thinking. It's also a challenge to your beliefs. But I don't expect people to be converted by reading a few minutes of my arguments; rather I attempt for them to open their minds as well and not be so stubborn.