Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
First off all, I'm getting a bit tired of this, so please excuse me for being a tiny little bit agitated. First it's, "it's based upon assumptions", then "it's pseudoscience", then it's "your going off topic", now it's "you're not understanding the bible on purpose", what's next? (no, I don't take all this personal, but these are the arguments that irritate me a bit, because they make no sense whatsoever, but maybe I asked for them somehow, I don't know.  ) Quote:
Wow, Phemox, its amazing to see how you absolutely refuse to even understand a single word in the bible. Regardless of whether or not the bible is true, even the smallest of understanding would tell you that much of Jesus' actions and words were.....metaphorical. He didn't always speak directly, and when he was referring to blindness, it wasn't physical blindness. But I doubt you've read the bible beyond the skeptic's annotated version.
It's obvious you don't even fully read my posts ... I already made clear I was talking about spiritual blindness as well. Metaphorical or not, that doesn't correct the error made in the reasoning.
Quote:
Blind people can have sins too, not just that, but why would people that can see be blind? Blind people often are just as biased. The sole purpose of that little line amongst many similar lines is to keep you from asking yourself the right questions ...
AAah, I see why there was confusion. Let me clarify a bit. I made a little error, I meant to say 'none-blind people can have sins too ... etc.' The second line was more of a joke about the phychology of this line. Because who decides who's infact 'spiritually blind'? We all would say the others who supposedly do not understand are blind to the truth. Again; everyone can make these kind of comments and seem right in the eyes of the 'believers'.
It's a phychological effect; "(person)A: What? They do not understand us? They do not believe in the bible!? How is this possible? B: Off course they don't believe, my son, that's because they are blind. They can't see the truth. A: Aaah, okey, that explains it. Stupid people  ..". It makes sense in the eyes of the believer, but it's not necessarily true. In my opinion it's just one of many phychological traps in the bible. I know 'traps' sounds negative, but they really are trap-like constructions, psychological and phylosophical in nature.
Quote:
Most of the major scientists who formed the foundation of modern science were christians or some other major faith. If we were having this discussion at that point, could I use that as proof that religion is superior to atheism?
The argument would fail anyway, since we are not living in the past, and religious scientists in the way you like to see them are a very very small minority and decreasing further and further. Infact, 'religious scientist' doesn't necessarily make them 'creationists' at all, but you'd ignore that fact obviously. What if we would say that there are more white scientists than black scientists and that this thus makes us superior scientists? Yes, this makes just as little sense as your argument. It's not quantity, but quality that counts. Man, you could even come up with an argument that scientists who's favorite color is blue are more often right than scientists who's favorite color is red, it still doesn't make them superior scientists because of their favorite color, even if it's based upon 'facts' ...
Quote:
Quote:
There will probably never be an evidence for a creator. This is only guessing and guessing with no proof at all is not the way science works.
No, just things like biogenesis and evolution.
Where's your evidence for A: the existence of your God then and B: the proof that scientists are 'guessing with no proof at all'. You can't give either, so obviously this is nonsense, like most of what you state.
If there's one thing that keeps amazing me when it comes to your faith and belief that you're so right, then it's the inconsistency of logic and argument. Even IF science makes certain assumptions, this doesn't mean you can state your bible is truth purely based upon what other do or do not. That's no evidence, it's not even circumstantial evidence in favor of your belief.
Let's think outside the box for a moment, let's dump science and it's explanations for a second. I don't think you'd mind doing that. Okey, and now look at your theory. Now think about what you consider mandatory for a theory to be valid and true.
Now, tell me why you believe in God WITHOUT any evidence...
Where's the common sense in that if I may ask?
Your faith is based upon faith, isn't it? In other words you accept it no matter what... Why?
Oww about me and reading the bible. I've voluntary read practically the whole bible purely out of interest and also because I went to a Christian school and we talked about it quite a lot. (every morning at least 10 minutes, I've been on that school 6 years, and no I don't have any traumas  )
There hasn't been a time at which I actually believed in the bible, but that doesn't mean I thus didn't or don't read it. I don't need a 'skeptic's annotated version', I can make up my own mind quite well. That's something that's relatively easy considering the facts.
Your evidence is none-existent, so why don't you focus on that, instead of trying to come up with 'things evolution can't explain'? Evolution can't explain everything, nobody claimed this.  The evolution theory isn't just one line of text, and yes parts of it might turn out to not be 100% correct, but maybe 97%. Does this make your belief without proof or logic, but only one big assumption more true? Lol, no, not at all. Where's the logic, eey?
Cheers
|
