Audie
Veteran Member
Yes, from a small but entirely legal school in California.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Arrogance of Both Science and Religion
- Thread starter The Reverend Bob
- Start date
Yes, from a small but entirely legal school in California.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are correct! "When you start thinking myths are literal that is what's for fools." Do you have proof the Christian myth ISN'T literal? I have:
* fulfilled prophecy
* a self-aware relationship with God
* I see God's power in my life frequently
* archaeology has verified thousands of Bible facts
* Etc., etc., etc.
sooda
Veteran Member
Good grief.. even your list is a lie.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The issues there include:
* "Jesus is a good man" creates more harm than good--He said people will go to Hell on his say-so and that He'd rise from the dead. Either He's crazy or Lord, not "a pretty good teacher"
* I'm not conflating anything. I know numbers atheist/agnostic scholars, especially in religion departments, who are political liberals--and destroying minds and souls as fast as they can, even unintentionally
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes! A bit less to real scientists who try to withhold bias--now take most of the scientists and academia and account for their overwhelmingly anti-God, liberal bias! Sucks!
Audie
Veteran Member
"fulfilled prophecy" applies as well to Nostradamus.
Not so much a lie as just stupid.
The next two-people believe all sorts of things
Archaeology verifying facts... sure. There really
is a place called Egypt. There are many more
facts readily verified.
That archaeology thing is what I call "lying with the truth".
Of course some things mentioned in the bible can
be verified. Same for any historical novel, or any
other book on any topic. Any book.
Omitted is that nothing of a supernatural nature
can be verified. All such claims that can be studied
prove to be lies.
Considering the way that so many do so much
to discredit Christianity-
If I were the "spiritual" sort, I probably would
think seriously as to whether many of our self
professed "christians" were not in facts shills
or agents for Satan.
sooda
Veteran Member
LOLOL.. They do in fact make religion look stupid..
Audie
Veteran Member
Hence the agent for satan thought.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Glad we agree. No one can say they have "proof" any myth is not literal but we can say with good probability that Hercules is a mythical character and we can say the same for Jesus.
Wait, did you just ask for "proof" that the bible isn't myth knowing no one can show anything like that with 100% certainty but then try to use prophecy as proof that it isn't? As if that CAN be shown to actually be prophecy with 100% certainty??
Hypocritical.
The NT writers, highly educated Rabbi (or highly educated someone) were clearly able to have access to the OT.
The NT was written as a savior god story with the intent to fulfill these prophecy.
You can believe whatever but the idea that this is actually proof of prophecy is absurd and I actually didn't think you would stoop to something like that?
Wait, I take it back. This is even worse. Hindus, Mithrians and god-worshippers since people began inventing gods all claim this relationship.
Even some alien abductees claim psychological emotional relationships with their captors who just want them to tell us not to continue harming the planet.
Confirmation bias. You will see influence of any supernatural entity who you believe to be in your life. 7 million children under age 7 die every year (while parents plead with deities) but your god helps you get parking spots? Absurd and insulting to rationality.
Because the bible is set in actual history does not confirm the mythical narratives.
Spider Man is set in NY city as are the Fantastic Four.
The Greek myths were set among real wars.
Let's check in with the worlds leading biblical archeologist:
William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject.
William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories.
One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived.
Moses - We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.
Goes on to explain how the majority of the Israelite religion worshipped Yahweh along with the Goddess Ashera.
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
Archeology shows exactly what we would expect if these were myths.
Not one shred of supporting evidence yet?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Whatever. Hell and saviors raising from the dead are Persian influence on Judaism. They appear in the OT after the Persian invasion.
Zoroastrianism,[n 1] or Mazdayasna, is one of the world's oldest religions that remains active. It is a monotheistic faith (i.e. a single creator God), centered in a dualistic cosmology of good and evil and an eschatology predicting the ultimate destruction of evil
Major features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity, Islam,[4] and Buddhism.[5]
Liberal, conservative, whatever. Those have nothing to do with believing ancient mythology. I know ultra-conservative scientist types who even go to church but privately say "of course it's all made-up stories".
Going after "liberals" is just a way to lash out for religious people who are butthurt that not everyone believes in their myth.
Audie
Veteran Member
gnostic
The Lost One
His 2nd and 3rd points are not so much as his delusions of grandeur or “specialness”.
4th point is definitely a lie.
sooda
Veteran Member
Archaeology.. even Bible Archaeology work against the Bible tales..
Hercules and the Waggoner
As a countryman was carelessly driving his wagon along a miry lane, his wheels stuck so deep in the clay that the horses came to a standstill. Upon this the man, without making the least effort of his own, began to call upon Hercules to come and help him out of his trouble. But Hercules bade him lay his shoulder to the wheel, assuring him that heaven only aided those who endeavored to help themselves.
About | Privacy | Co
sooda
Veteran Member
Fairy Tales Are Possibly Older Than The Greek Myths And Bible
www.realmofhistory.com/2016/01/20/researchers...
Researchers claim that many fairy tales are older than Greek myths and the Bible, with some being around 4,000 to 6,000 years old.
sooda
Veteran Member
The Eight Biggest Myths About The Bible
Newsweek is right: Americans are biblically illiterate. But it missed some of our biggest cultural myths about the Bible.
By Georgi Boorman and Jeremy Swingle
JANUARY 6, 2015
Newsweek claims that virtually no one in America is biblically literate, citing a 2010 Pew poll reporting that those who self-identify as Christians rank only a little higher than atheists at biblical literacy.
https://thefederalist.com/2015/01/06/the-eight-biggest-myths-about-the-bible/
gnostic
The Lost One
Hawking is a prominent “theoretical” physicist.
Notes that I have highlighted the word “theoretical”.
The word “theoretical” is to offer a “draft” or “proposed” explanation in a hypothesis that are mathematically feasible (hence it offer proof” in the form of logical or mathematical equations, formulas or metric constants), but not in any way testable...yet (hence, not falsifiable, meaning no evidences, no experiments to demonstrate this theoretical model).
Theoretical models offer only possible solutions, by offering proofs in the forms of equations or solutions, but not testable and verifiable evidences.
Science isn’t “science” until it meet the requirements of -
- Falsifiability (which is another word for “testable”, “refutable”)
- Scientific Method (which involves a number of steps, but the main ones are formulating the hypothesis and providing the test results of the evidences found or experiments; it is the test results that determine if the hypothesis is probable true or probable false)
- Peer Review (is where independent scientists go over the hypothesis and test results presented, have met the first 2 requirements, as well as to ensure there are no errors and no bias and cheating)
I have said “chance”, didn’t I?
Well, there were times when two or even more alternative hypotheses being on offered at the same time.
For instance, during the 1800s, it wasn’t just Charles Darwin who proposed evolution via Natural Selection (On the Origin of Species, 1859). The other biologist who wrote another paper proposed the same hypothesis on Natural Selection by the name of Alfred Russel Wallace (On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species, 1855, and The Malay Archipelago, 1869).
Both Darwin and Wallace have done their fieldworker aboard - Darwin on the HMS Beagle and his main focus was in South America during the 1831-1836. While Wallace main areas of exploration was in Southeast Asia in 1854-1862.
It was Darwin who has his papers published first, partly because he was still overseas, so he couldn’t really publish On the Law..., but mostly because Darwin has already presented his ideas to his contemporaries prior to publication On Origin.
Likewise, in another instance, during the 1920s, 3 independent physicists wrote papers on the cosmology of the expanding universe using Einstein’s General Relativity as their framework:
- Alexander Friedmann (1922)
- Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25)
- Georges Lemaître (1927)
In direct competition against Gamow in the late 1940s and early 1950s, was Fred Hoyle who advocated his own hypothesis and research - Steady State model.
1964 was when CMBR were discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, which debunked Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis.
Both of my examples provide scenarios where there were competing hypotheses can either offer the same model or different models, and that often lead to one winning hypothesis that became scientific theory.
Theoretical model hasn’t been tested and don’t meet the requirements, therefore it isn’t accepted as scientific theory.
Examples of theoretical models or hypotheses, include the String Theory (including the 11 dimensions and alternate reality of M-theory), Supersymmetry and Superstring Theory, Multiverse model, Oscillating Universe model (also known as the Cyclical Model or the Big Bounce), Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Gravity, etc.
(Note that of those in the list above, Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Gravity have the biggest potential of being true, scientifically.)
As brilliant as Hawking is a brilliant physicist and mathematician, but a large part of his works remained theoretical and untestable, and he has been corrected on several occasions by lesser physicists.
Real science are the ones that have verifiable evidences, not just proofs, and theoretical science only offered proposed explanations, and theoretical explanations that haven’t been accepted yet.
The Higgs Boson was theoretical, but very recently they have discovered its existence with the Large Hadron Collider in 2013.
Einstein’s own General Relativity and Special Relativity were once theoretical too, until they found evidences and experiments that can test them.
But mind you, not everything within GR and SR are testable, some have remained theoretical, like the wormhole and the singularity for instances. While the singularity has been indirectly observed (Stellar blackhole), the wormhole are only real in science fiction novels and movies.
Likewise Quantum Physics has some experimental successes, but some remained theoretical, eg Quantum Gravity and Quantum Field Theory. Theoretical physicists are actively working on both of these areas in quantum physics and particle physics.
Anyway, I am not convinced Hawking is the best “scientist”; maybe he deserve the best “theoretical physicist” award, but theoretical science isn’t really science unless it can be tested.
Last edited:
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
If it is theoretical and untestable then it isn't a theory in the scientific definition of the word
The Reverend Bob
Fart Machine and Beastmaster
What the hell did you people do with my thread?
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes.
I haven’t theoretical models like Superstring theory and Multiverse model, because they are still theoretical.
The only saving grace of any theoretical models are their maths (eg the solutions in their equations or formulas), what scientists and mathematics called proof. A proof-based model is where theoretical physicist can prove their equations by solving them, which make them at the very least, mathematically feasible.
And being mathematically feasible is the only reasons for it not being trashed as pseudoscience.
But science, real science, required observations, hence verifiable evidences. Such evidences have to one of the following or the combination, or all of the above, which is evidence has to be observable or detectable, quantifiable, measurable, testable or verifiable.
The more evidences you have “for” the hypothesis, then the hypothesis has probability of true.
But if the more evidences “against” the hypothesis or the lack of any evidences, then the hypothesis has probability of being false, hence the model has been debunked.
But theoretical model or hypothesis has the potential of being scientifically true.
As I have already pointed out in one of my examples, the Higgs Boson was first predicted in 1964, and this particle remained “theoretical” until it was discovered by LHC in 2012-13.
Likewise it took decades before Lemaître’s hypothesis was true, eg discovery of CMBR in 1964. (Of course, Lemaître didn’t predict CMBR in 1927, Gamow, Alpher and Herman did, in 1948. GA&H expanded the 1920s hypothesis to include CMBR and Nucleosynthesis.)
Relativity used to be theoretical as well as until they have developed several experiments during the 1920s, 30s and 40s. General Relativity is the current scientific theory on gravity.
How long did it take for heliocentric model to be proven?
Aristarchus of Samos (3rd century BCE) was the first to predicted heliocentric model, which is the planets, including the Earth orbited around the sun, but couldn’t prove it or test his model. Hence it was basically “theoretical”.
But geocentric model say that the Earth was stationary, while planets and the sun orbited around the Earth. Geocentric model was popularized by Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century CE).
Geocentric was so popular during ancient, medieval and even Renaissance times, but it was never debunked until Galileo with his telescope discovered the heliocentric model to be true.
So the theoretical and unpopular heliocentric model took over a millennium and a half to vindicate Aristarchus.
Being theoretical doesn’t meant is true or false, until you can test them.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Hey...you were the one brought up Stephen Hawking.
Hawking (and other theoretical physicists) is great for thinking outside of the boxes.
But thinking outside don't make their hypotheses true or being scientific.
Science is only science is when you have real empirical and verifiable evidences to back up the proposed models.
And Hawking isn't good at experimental physics.