Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would suspect it would only be crutial if one believed that a diety did exist, therein lies the burden of proof. And....one can not use the bible as proof because it would be a self-serving book being used to prove an invalid proposition.
I was really hoping for a different direction in this ongoing debate.
An existential discussion would have been something refreshing.
Nevertheless, for those who believe some of the bible is historical fact, what would be the difference with theists using the bible,
and atheists using scientific literature.
Both atheism and theism require an element of faith in the authors
I was really hoping for a different direction in this ongoing debate.
An existential discussion would have been something refreshing.
Nevertheless, for those who believe some of the bible is historical fact, what would be the difference with theists using the bible,
and atheists using scientific literature.
Both atheism and theism require an element of faith in the authors
Scientific literature says nothing about gods. Disbelieving in gods does not require "faith in scientific literature." All it requires is to not believe theistic claims.
Scientific literature says nothing about gods. Disbelieving in gods does not require "faith in scientific literature." All it requires is to not believe theistic claims.
My belief in the supernatural requires an element of faith.
And theism does not have a monopoly on the supernatural.
I was really hoping for a different direction in this ongoing debate.
An existential discussion would have been something refreshing.
Nevertheless, for those who believe some of the bible is historical fact, what would be the difference with theists using the bible,
and atheists using scientific literature.
Both atheism and theism require an element of faith in the authors
Before things in science become fact, they have to be proven many times.
This is not the case in religion. People claim something is fact just because a book has x written in it.
Well if that's the case I can publish a book and write all sorts of false thins in it and call it true.
Faith, as many religious people tell me, is having faith in things not seen.
Like George Carlin says, "I dunno...if I can see something, it sort of helps the credibility along, don't you think?"
Before things in science become fact, they have to be proven many times.
This is not the case in religion. People claim something is fact just because a book has x written in it.
Well if that's the case I can publish a book and write all sorts of false thins in it and call it true.
Faith, as many religious people tell me, is having faith in things not seen.
Like George Carlin says, "I dunno...if I can see something, it sort of helps the credibility along, don't you think?"
It's interesting to compare the difference between faith seeking understanding, and a hypothesis.
One begins with a question
The other begins with an answer
It's interesting to compare the difference between faith seeking understanding, and a hypothesis.
One begins with a question
The other begins with an answer
A difference I see is faith is believing in the untestable (or at least untested), whereas a hypothesis is designed to be tested. They both are guesses but you can only find out if you guessed right by testing.
A difference I see is faith is believing in the untestable (or at least untested), whereas a hypothesis is designed to be tested. They both are guesses but you can only find out if you guessed right by testing.
Oh? How? And why, then, do theists come up with wildly different results to their "tests"?
Unfortunately, because many reject logic.
This may be anathema to the scientific community, but I would love to see the day when more of the worlds best minds would begin with the hypothesis of intelligent design, and stick with it.
There was a time in early Church history when this happened. Biblical literalism and fundamentalism have had a negative influence on this type of critical thinking at a time in history when it could be very productive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
