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.
And any of makes you think you can claim absolute knowledge.. how? Pointing out where you are wrong is far from "talking down" to you.
The flow chart is a accurate representation of the type of "absolute truth", as you would put it, compared to scientific investigation of the universe.
You are ignorant of the scientific method, get over it.
I know the scientific method fine. It's the best way to understand repeatable natural phenomena. However like I indicated it's not my religion. I do not have to believe everything is repeatable natural phenomenon so I don't. I do not have to start with the assumptions you think I must so I don't. I'm not interested in converting to scientism so I won't, and frankly you're a pretty weak evangelist anyway.
Your diagram is silly, simplistic, snide, and childish. Your inability to see that is your issue not mine. Your inability to give anything like an adequate response to anything I've said is again your issue to deal with not mine.
So I should not have basically apologized for talking down to you, or for anything, as it's just a show of weakness in a discussion like this. I worry about the prideful nature of this statement, but at the moment I think it's quite likely I'm smarter than you and less ignorant than you. Talking down to you might just be unavoidable as it often is with eleven-year-old boys. Basically you are not as smart as you think you are, so get over that.
I know the scientific method fine. It's the best way to understand repeatable natural phenomena. However like I indicated it's not my religion. I do not have to believe everything is repeatable natural phenomenon so I don't. I do not have to start with the assumptions you think I must so I don't. I'm not interested in converting to scientism so I won't, and frankly you're a pretty weak evangelist anyway.
Your diagram is silly, simplistic, snide, and childish. Your inability to see that is your issue not mine. Your inability to give anything like an adequate response to anything I've said is again your issue to deal with not mine.
So I should not have basically apologized for talking down to you, or for anything, as it's just a show of weakness in a discussion like this. I worry about the prideful nature of this statement, but at the moment I think it's quite likely I'm smarter than you and less ignorant than you. Talking down to you might just be unavoidable as it often is with eleven-year-old boys. Basically you are not as smart as you think you are, so get over that.
It doesn't have to be repeatable, the test has to be!
I'm not preaching scripture how can I be an evangelist?
The diagram is an easy, direct. Easy for those who don't understand the scientific method, direct, for those who won't read what I've typed. It is an accurate representation of your faith base "absolute truth" vs scientific inquiry.
I really don't care if you're smarter then I (if you could even quantify an over reaching claim across the board on every known brain function), but you are clearly ignorant of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Religion may clarify and evolve as well, but along with reason it has revelation. This allows it to have truths which are simply true, because they come from the source of Truth, and do not need to change.
IT DOES NOT NEED TO CHANGE! Now we know you are willing to lie for Jesus...
It doesn't have to be repeatable, the test has to be!
I'm not preaching scripture how can I be an evangelist?
Although the standard term refers to Christians a more expansive definition is "To explain ones beliefs to another in the hope that they might wish to adopt them."
Anyway after this you just sputter inanely, sadly showing how truly clueless you are about anything I said, and then show more dumb pictures at me. So enough with you, buh bye.
Herein lies the difference between science and religion,and speaks to my point exactly.You believe biblical "facts" not because there is any evidence of them,but because the Bible TELLS you to believe them.You have told me and others that you believe in an issue being discussed in another thread,which I shall not drag into this discussion,simply because the Bible TELLS you it is correct.You believe on FAITH that it is true,and not on observable and tested FACTS.And because you believe in faith,you cannot stand the possibility that those facts may not be correct,and will desperately search for anything to support your faith,rather than allow the facts to speak for themselves.This is the difference I pointed out,and the point of the OP.When science realizes,through further inquiry,that it's ideas on a subject may not be totally correct,it researches further and tries to find the truth,EVEN IF that truth changes commonly accepted precepts.Religion does none of this.Religion denies error and defends it's dogma IN SPITE of any evidence to the contrary.It does NOT look to see if maybe it's ideas are incorrect.It firmly denies the possibility of it's being incorrect,because that challenges faith in it's authority.
Herein lies the difference I pointed out in the OP,with examples.
No, I believe in Biblical facts when historical discovery shows them to be facts. And historical discovery does not require faith to see their reality. If anything, it is science that is catching up with the Bible, and not the other way around. Numerous accounts spoken of in the Bible were considered fables by others. Yet the Bible has a continued history of showing itself to be true. Yet such discoveries have been ignored by most, and that is why you hold the opinion you do.
Although the standard term refers to Christians a more expansive definition is "To explain ones beliefs to another in the hope that they might wish to adopt them."
Anyway after this you just sputter inanely, sadly showing how truly clueless you are about anything I said, and then show more dumb pictures at me. So enough with you, buh bye.
You know, I go to my local library and the world book encyclopedia dictionary, which I usual go to first, if I can get to the library, is mysteriously missing your made up definition.
But even if this definition is correct, which is isn't, I am not explaining my beliefs, but pointing out the obvious flaws in yours.
Ah I see, claim I "just sputter insanely" then slap your hands over your ears screaming la la la la la la la
Would you like me to type it? Do you need me to type it.. The word of god, funny how it's always humans doing the talking.
Inspire revelation = making something up that seems reasonable..
http://www.ivegotatheoryaboutthat.com/images/geocentric.jpg (broken link)
http://www.heksengilde.nl/attachments/Image/burning_witch.jpg (broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex
Evangelical atheist? That's an oxymoron.
Religions are man made, that's obvious just by looking at them. Yes, I'm sure you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between investigation of the universe and religious faith.
A person who claims absolute knowledge, with no test in reality is dangerous. Nothing in reality could convince a true believe they may be wrong.
No, I believe in Biblical facts when historical discovery shows them to be facts. And historical discovery does not require faith to see their reality. If anything, it is science that is catching up with the Bible, and not the other way around. Numerous accounts spoken of in the Bible were considered fables by others. Yet the Bible has a continued history of showing itself to be true. Yet such discoveries have been ignored by most, and that is why you hold the opinion you do.
Can you please provide us with a list of the biblical facts that have been discovered which doesn't include just geographical locations??
Archeology has uncovered many things (historical sites/texts), which disprove biblical stories as well...you are aware of this aren't you? Just because there may be some real places mentioned doesn't mean they took place exactly as it was written. There were many actual places mentioned in the bible which weren't actually in existence until years (sometimes hundreds of years) after the alleged stories took place, just to give you one small example of the fabrication involved. Take some time to critically examine what you've read in the bible, you may be a little shocked at what you find.
Can you please provide us with a list of the biblical facts that have been discovered which doesn't include just geographical locations??
Archeology has uncovered many things (historical sites/texts), which disprove biblical stories as well...you are aware of this aren't you? Just because there may be some real places mentioned doesn't mean they took place exactly as it was written. There were many actual places mentioned in the bible which weren't actually in existence until years (sometimes hundreds of years) after the alleged stories took place, just to give you one small example of the fabrication involved. Take some time to critically examine what you've read in the bible, you may be a little shocked at what you find.
One of my biggest questions is about Moses who is given credit for writing five books of the old testament. Besides the fact that the books were written about 500 years after Moses had died most of what's there was written in third person. Who was that mystery writer who observed Moses' every move and heard god when he spoke to Moses and also saw the burning bush?
One of my biggest questions is about Moses who is given credit for writing five books of the old testament. Besides the fact that the books were written about 500 years after Moses had died most of what's there was written in third person. Who was that mystery writer who observed Moses' every move and heard god when he spoke to Moses and also saw the burning bush?
It's been well established by reputable scholars that the first five books of the bible were written by, at the very least, 4 to 5 different groups of people...and yet, they all still insist that it was written by Moses. This is no different than people who attribute the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John....even though its a well established fact they have no idea who actually wrote these books and the names were just assigned to them. I am just dumfounded sometimes by the illiteracy and ignorance that is rampant in religiousity.
No, I believe in Biblical facts when historical discovery shows them to be facts. And historical discovery does not require faith to see their reality. If anything, it is science that is catching up with the Bible, and not the other way around. Numerous accounts spoken of in the Bible were considered fables by others. Yet the Bible has a continued history of showing itself to be true. Yet such discoveries have been ignored by most, and that is why you hold the opinion you do.
This is absolutely incredible. Nothing in it is true other than the second sentence. Science "catching up with the Bible"? Surely you jest! If you only believe in Biblical facts when they are corroborated by history, there is not much of it that you believe.
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.
