-
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!
Science and the Bible?
- Thread starter Alone
- Start date
Augustus
…
You don't seem to understand what a strawman is. That was a question followed by a statement of fact. I question I assume you would answer 'no' to, hence what came after it.
Especially as you mentioned: At that time it was really too early to have a "scientific consensus". Heliocentrism was not a new theory at this point, and even if it was a new theory doesn't 'reset the market', it has to overturn the existing consensus through argumentation and weight of evidence.
I've asked multiple times whether or not you accept that Galileo's arguments went against the majority scientific consensus of that time. As you referenced the case as an example of 'science denial', it seems to me that you must, but I was asking for clarification.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong. I do understand. Seriously dude if all that you have are iw misrepresentation then you might as well pack it in. You failed from the start here.
And if you wanted clarification you could have asked honestly.
nPeace
Veteran Member
You might as well be talking to yourself. The guy never admits when he's wrong. Moreover, when the irrefutable evidence is presented to him, he just takes you on a journey to...
nowhere.
Augustus
…
So again, no actual arguments, just some empty claim about something that you misunderstood and has already been clarified?
I stated facts from the start, which you then misrepresented and were corrected on.
You asked for evidence, it was provided from a scholarly source. Unsurprisingly, you ignored it and repeated your misrepresentation instead.
Strange that someone who claims to value reason refuses to address the actual argument which was supported with clear evidence and keeps on finding some excuse not to.
Like this?
Augustus
…
You might as well be talking to yourself. The guy never admits when he's wrong. Moreover, when the irrefutable evidence is presented to him, he just takes you on a journey to...
nowhere.
There is a common theme that happens when you try to discuss the historical relationship between religion and science with those who have a strong personal animus against religion.
It starts from the problem that 'everybody knows' that the church was totally anti-science and oppressed scientists left, right and centre. I used to think this too before I actually looked at the scholarship on the issue.
Unfortunately, this is one field where secular academic scholarship and 'common knowledge' are completely opposed to each other. It doesn't help that all of these conflict thesis' myths are endlessly in online 'sceptic' communities leading to monumental groupthink and a belief that this is the objective, evidence based position, and only apologists could possibly disagree.
Emotion and group loyalty create a great deal of cognitive dissonance that make beleif change
The process:
*antitheist repeats one of the countless 'conflict thesis' myths*
That's not actually true though
*You're just a biased apologist*
I'm an atheist. It just happens that [conflict thesis myth X] is not considered accurate by actual scholars. Here are some scholarly sources to support
*They are also biased*
Here are some more sources then
*Ignores the main points and finds something to nitpick*
Have you got any scholarly sources to support your view?
*You're just biased apologist*
Ironically, much of the conflict thesis stuff derives from Protestant anti-Catholic polemics and originally actually was religious apologetics
From what I have seen you are talking about yourself. You don't present much in the way of evidence. At least nothing that rises to the level of irrefutable.You might as well be talking to yourself. The guy never admits when he's wrong. Moreover, when the irrefutable evidence is presented to him, he just takes you on a journey to...
nowhere.
You are one to talk about taking people on a journey. I only wish yours went somewhere other than Diversionistan.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
But the thing with science is, when a 'bad' or more correctly, wrong conclusion is reached it will be rejected through testing and peer review. It would no longer be "scientific" if it really ever was. Nothing is scientific unless it passes rigorous testing and retesting by those qualified to do so. That is why people who are not qualified to determine what is science and what is not are called laymen. Their opinions do not matter in determining the validity of a scientific theory or application of scientific methods and conclusion. So lay faith followers need not worry about what goes on in the fields of science. It has nothing to do with religious ideas and does not try to solve religious questions. Only questions about how stuff really works in this universe.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
This is another thing which separates science from religion. Science follows the evidence to draw conclusions about truth and facts whereas religions manipulate their evidence to create whatever narrative they want to believe. Facts aren't necessary for belief but they are necessary for science. But good on you for accepting proven geology about the age of our planet. I had no idea this was still an issue within religion. Amazing really .
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Sadly -this is the case with much of "religion" -but it is certainly not biblical.
1 Thes 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Rom 1:19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Prov 25:2It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Paul was an idiot.
Is it SO CLEAR that 2/3 of the world's population could MISS IT?!!
nPeace
Veteran Member
An emoji would have done the trick.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Because 2/3 of the world is on the right track?
Lots of people have bibles.... they rarely read... and when they do, it is usually not an in-depth search -so... yah
Most actually have no idea what it really says -especially in terms of an overview or "big picture".....
Isaiah 28:9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Because 2/3 of the world is on the right track?
Lots of people have bibles.... they rarely read... and when they do, it is usually not an in-depth search -so... yah
Most actually have no idea what it really says -especially in terms of an overview or "big picture".....
Isaiah 28:9Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Not really interested in Bible verses to prove anything.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
You don't need it to prove that people don't know what it says -you just need to know what it says yourself.
If you study it and prove what it says, you'll see your circle arrow thing is also incorrect -though some do reason that way.
Does that mean one can now examine the Message of Muhammad calling on Christians to regect the doctrine of the Trinity and see Jesus as a Messenger of God as Muhammad was?
The point being, in that light Christians will stop looking for a flesh body named Jesus to return and reconsider it is the Spirit that returns?
Regards Tony
nPeace
Veteran Member
I don't see the connection here.
However, none of Jesus followers believe the Trinity, and all of them see Jesus - not as a mere messenger, but as the savior, promised Messiah, and king of kings, and lord of lords, and a son of almighty God.
So none of Jesus' followers believe Muhammad was a messenger of God, since his message is not in harmony with scripture.
No follower of Christ looks for a flesh body named Jesus to return.
They know his return is invisible, and he is a mighty immortal spirit.
It seems the Christians you speak of are not followers of Christ.
Can you explain the connection between what I wrote and your post though. I'm not seeing what it has to do with falsely called science / knowledge.
Thus Science rightly used, can also consider that if it is the Spirit that is important, then it is logical to conclude that God can choose the Messengers, give them the 'great and might spirit' and then it is us that always ejects them, for whatever reason we choose. That given Spirit is the Metephor of the 'Virgin Birth'.
You have thus stated, based on no sound reason, that Muhammad be rejected based on a pure speculative assumption.
The Titles, the promised Messiah, and king of kings, and lord of lords are in this day applicable and shown to be for the Bab and fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. It is indeed the Spirit that guides.
That is more logical and statistical proven view of Scripture, that God sends Messengers and many are called, few are chosen. That has happened with every Prophet and Messenger.
Thus statistics strongly support the few, who are offering new frames of references to Truth, over the millions that call out in a single name, thinking they have an exclusive grasp on Truth.
Regards Tony
nPeace
Veteran Member
How is saying that Muhammad's message was contrary to scripture, a speculative assumption, not based on sound reasoning?