Contradictions in the Bible?

[dilloduck]

And I suppose you'll claim that religion has never been a "weapon of mass destruction".

Please give an example of the bolded part.

There is a difference between a religion and those who practice it just as there is a difference between scientists and how they practice it. Over the years, science has made claim after claim over of what we were to accept as "proven". Take medication for example---how many times did they promise everyone that a medication was safe when it was in reality dangerous?

 

[LOki]

No they're not Joz. Creation is a belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. They are two very different things.

I fail to understand why there is a need for a believer to attack science by claiming that evolution is a belief. It's a calumny.

They are both beliefs, as Joz asserted--creationism is a belief based on faith in the infallible accuracy of the Bible (and the infallibility derived from faith in the Bible), and evolution is a belief based on our arguably fallible perception of a reality whose properties are presumed to be consistent independent of our perceptions.

The purpose of making the assertion that evolution (or, for that matter, science) is "merely" a belief, is to establish that evolution belongs in the same category of surety-in-conviction that mythologies and superstition belong to--just like creationism. Having estasblished such equivalency, there is no rationale for preferring evolution to creationism. Then, evolution having no preferrential rationale, and being logically equal in valididity to creationism, other criteria for establishing a preference of one over the other may legitimately be introduced--like heresy for instance; "...you're going to hell for asserting the validity of evolution (subtext = and we're sendng you there right now unless you stop)..."

And when was the last time a group of scientists burned someone for heresy?

Good point.

And here's another: Note how that politically vocal portion of the religious population so often accuse the scientist of being unconscionably arrogant despite the fact that the scientist inevitably winds up accepting refutations and/or improvements upon his theories, provided such refutation and/or improvement is based upon the rational foundations of scientific methodology--IOW: he can, and so often does, change his mind. Yet when confronted with a discrepancy between the Bible (read: "the word of God") and observation of reality, the religious don't appear to change their own minds, but rather they change God's mind to fit the observations--and those that don't, stand upon their wholly unsupported judgements based in faith, establishing themselves, arbitrarily, as the unquestionable judges of what is the truth.

 

[Diuretic]

There is a difference between a religion and those who practice it just as there is a difference between scientists and how they practice it. Over the years, science has made claim after claim over of what we were to accept as "proven". Take medication for example---how many times did they promise everyone that a medication was safe when it was in reality dangerous?

There have been crooked scientists for sure. We've just seen one in South Korea and of course in my country there's the case of McBride and thalidomide. But you know some of those "mistakes" weren't errors at all, they were corrupt acts. And when it comes to medicines you can look straight at the big pharmaceutical companies that damn well know something's got dangerous side-effects but lie to protect their investments and to protect profits. That's not science, that's mammon doing its ugly best to protect itself.

There is good science and there is bad science. Bad science is when they get it wrong - such as the premature claim a few years ago for "cold fusion". It wasn't. It was bad science because it was carried out badly. Bad science is also when politics corrupts it, as in the case of Trofim Lysenko in Stalin's Soviet Union. Now there's case where bad science and totalitarian politics combined to cause many, many deaths. But that wasn't science, it was ideology gone postal.

Good science is valid. How the knowledge gained from good science is used is probably up to others other than the scientist.

Trust me you wouldn't want to live in a world without science.

 

[Joz]

The difference Joz is that belief can reside in someone's mind but it can't be proven. "A" might tell me that he believes in something but all I'm hearing are words. "A "could be telling me a lie. And how would I convince "C" that, simply because "A" told me he believed something, then "A" really did believe? I can't prove it.

On the theory of evolution. There are a number of objective observations, things are looked at, pointed out, seen. There they are. Explanations can be derived from those observations. Those explanations can be tested and found wanting or found to be satisfactory explanations (within current knowledge) of the observations.

There are no "evolutionists" - evolution as a theory exists independent of what a group of people think of it.

As for those who don't believe who attack believers (and that's not just atheists because we know believers of different religions really get stuck into each other) - it's wrong. But it's not connected with science. It's not science that's doing the attacking.

Bork describes religion as: "the means for which we explain that which exists outside ourselves; the transcendant." By that definition, evolution can be a religion.
The problem, with those independants that believe evolution, is that they deem it as the sole explanation of life. People who believe in creation donot exclude the possibility of evolution but a possibility by means of an initial Creator.

 

[dilloduck]

There have been crooked scientists for sure. We've just seen one in South Korea and of course in my country there's the case of McBride and thalidomide. But you know some of those "mistakes" weren't errors at all, they were corrupt acts. And when it comes to medicines you can look straight at the big pharmaceutical companies that damn well know something's got dangerous side-effects but lie to protect their investments and to protect profits. That's not science, that's mammon doing its ugly best to protect itself.

There is good science and there is bad science. Bad science is when they get it wrong - such as the premature claim a few years ago for "cold fusion". It wasn't. It was bad science because it was carried out badly. Bad science is also when politics corrupts it, as in the case of Trofim Lysenko in Stalin's Soviet Union. Now there's case where bad science and totalitarian politics combined to cause many, many deaths. But that wasn't science, it was ideology gone postal.

Good science is valid. How the knowledge gained from good science is used is probably up to others other than the scientist.

Trust me you wouldn't want to live in a world without science.

If we weren't so dependent on science we wouldnt notice the difference if it were gone. At the same time that science improves the quality of life it makes it difficult and dangerous on other levels.

I'm glad we have good science--it just can't solve everything and isn't all people expect from it.

 

[Joz]

If we all had to learn for ourselves, as individuals, we'd still be sitting in caves wondering if it was safe to go outside. What differentiates humans from most (must be a bit careful with claims here) is that not only do we learn from our individual experiences but we learn from others. We have, in a very brief time (relatively speaking) moved from being hunter-gatherers to dominating the planet. Other animals on the Earth are doing exactly what their ancestors did thousands and thousands of years ago. Crocodiles still wait around in the water and leap at things. Humans have been to the Moon. Language and writing have enabled us to get out of the cave and into the skyscraper. Our ability to acquire and use shared knowledge means that we can treat each other's illnesses and not lay around in the back of the cave waiting to die.

And the ability to learn that way is called reasoning, which is what seperates [most of] us from all other animals.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe we are to learn for ourselves and learning for ourselves is the only way to be sure. Natue didn't exactly hand science an instuction manual.

Which doesn't explain why a god needs people to have faith instead of just revealing himself/herself...

 

[mattskramer]

Wow! What starts out as a challenge for those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible to synthesize apparent contradictions turns into a debate about the values of science and faith.

 

[Annie]

Wow! What starts out as a challenge for those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible to synthesize apparent contradictions turns into a debate about the values of science and faith.

From an noncombatant, what the f*** did you think would happen?

 

[mattskramer]

From an noncombatant, what the f*** did you think would happen?

Oh. I don’t know. I’ve been a “member” here for a while but it still surprises me now threads can “mutate” so quickly from the original topic to something quite different. Oh well.

 

[Annie]

Oh. I don’t know. I’ve been a “member” here for a while but it still surprises me now threads can “mutate” so quickly from the original topic to something quite different. Oh well.

All I can say is then, you weren't thinking. Are you really that dense?

 

[mattskramer]

All I can say is then, you weren't thinking. Are you really that dense?

Hey. Okay, okay. Perhaps I was a little dense. Is that personal attack really warranted? I thought that people might stick to my topic. I was wrong. I admit it. I guess that it was wishful thinking on my part. Ouch. What terrible thing did I do – think that – for a moment – people here would stick to the subject. Horrors. Now, how about criticizing those who don’t keep to the topic? Sheesh.

 

[Annie]

Hey. Okay, okay. Perhaps I was a little dense. Is that personal attack really warranted? I thought that people might stick to my topic. I was wrong. I admit it. I guess that it was wishful thinking on my part. Ouch. What terrible thing did I do – think that – for a moment – people here would stick to the subject. Horrors. Now, how about criticizing those who don’t keep to the topic? Sheesh.

Nope, not going to blame mods/admins for this one, the blame rests with you.

 

[mattskramer]

Okay. Mia culpa. Lately, I have not been posting items as often as I used to. I had forgotten that people here have a tendency to throw ad hominem attackes.

 

[Annie]

Okay. Mia culpa. Lately, I have not been posting items as often as I used to. I had forgotten that people here have a tendency to throw ad hominem attackes.

And you forgot that you were a causative factor of such? Still are?

 

[mattskramer]

And you forgot that you were a causative factor of such? Still are?

I force people to post personal attacks? Wow! I did not know that I was so powerful. Well. I'm treating my mother to diner tonight. The rest of this week is going to be busy. I guess that I'll "see you around".

:tng:

 

[Annie]

I force people to post personal attacks? Wow! I did not know that I was so powerful. Well. I'm treating my mother to diner tonight. The rest of this week is going to be busy. I guess that I'll "see you around".

:tng:

You really wish to join the ranks of Psychoblues? I thought you were above, but I've been wrong before and will likely be in the future.

 

[Fisherking]

Which doesn't explain why a god needs people to have faith instead of just revealing himself/herself...

God has revealed himself in numerous ways.
He revealed himself in the person of Christ, but the people explained it away as something else. He even tried proving it in the miracles he performed, but most still wouldnt believe. Which leads us to faith.
He wants us to just believe in him based on what we have, his word.
Its a choice, we can choose to believe or not believe.

 

[Dr Grump]

God has revealed himself in numerous ways.
He revealed himself in the person of Christ, but the people explained it away as something else. He even tried proving it in the miracles he performed, but most still wouldnt believe. Which leads us to faith.
He wants us to just believe in him based on what we have, his word.
Its a choice, we can choose to believe or not believe.

He supposedly did those things over 2,000 years ago. I'm talking about the here and now...

 

[dilloduck]

He supposedly did those things over 2,000 years ago. I'm talking about the here and now...

Do you want everything easy?