Atheism is not scientific

[Brian2]

Why can we only have faith in the unknown?

That is what faith is.
It is like believing that the universe came into existence through natural causes, or could have, it is faith in the unknown.

 

[Audie]

That is what faith is.
It is like believing that the universe came into existence through natural causes, or could have, it is faith in the unknown.

Nonsense.

Christians are into unconditional belief based on
zero data.

Science does conditional acceptance of probabilities based on data.

Could hardly be more different.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry that I misunderstood your earlier post. You're right, I read in stuff you certainly weren't saying. I stand abashed.

I agree that science does not know all, and so that leaves an opening for faith. It is also where aesthetics, ethics, civics, etc. lie.

To me, faith--and the other areas listed above--must still take cognizance of what science does and even seems to know, and how that knowledge might affect them, and must also take care to know their own limits.

Yes we should recognise what science does and even seems to know and those of faith should know their own limits, which I am made aware of by people on this forum.
There are of course limits to scientific knowledge and sometimes science imo oversteps the bounds of what it can say is known and what is not.

 

[Audie]

.....sometimes science imo oversteps the bounds of what it can say is known and what is not.

"Science" does that?
I say not.

For religion though, that is the whole enchilada.

 

[Brian2]

Obviously, you do not. Science accepts there were repeated local floods from many different sources. Science does not need to "know exactly what happened and when".

Howerver, science does know that 6000 years ago the entire earth was not covered in water as detailed in your scripture.


Well, your opinion is in contradiction with what is written in your scripture. My emphases...

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle,...22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23And And all flesh died which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.​

That is not what your scripture explicitly states...

All the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered
And all flesh died
And all flesh died
(except those on the ark)​

Again, your opinion is contradicted by your scripture.

If you want to replace scripture with your opinions, that is your prerogative.


That's one of the problems with religion. Five Christians will give fifty interpretations of the holy unchanging word of their god's scripture.

The scriptures you quoted can be translated different way to show a more local flood.
The interpretation overall is dependant on what science tells us, as least I try to make mine dependent on that.

 

[Audie]

The scriptures you quoted can be translated different way to show a more local flood.
The interpretation overall is dependant on what science tells us, as least I try to make mine dependent on that.

The whole book can be - and is-
interpreted in any way that suits the reader.

 

[Brian2]

In the above, you did a lot of speculating and, at the same time, pretended to know what people knew and believed and did 2000 years ago.

We know which gospels were accepted by the quotes from the apostolic fathers and others and from those handed down. Why would not the apostolic fathers who had some contact with apostles, know the true gospel story from the false stories?

In the above, you did a lot of speculating and, at the same time, pretended to know what people knew and believed and did 2000 years ago.

That Luke was written before Acts and both before 64AD is ascertained from the information in Acts and from the internal evidence. It does assume that they are writings by someone who was not out to deceive us about when they were written of course.

Yeah. Not one single person commented on a man feeding thousands. Not one.

Who would you think would do that? Did the recipients of the food even know that it had been a miracle? The close disciples did and wrote about it. As Luke says, his stories came from witnesses and people who had been there from the beginning.

In the above, you did a lot of speculating and, at the same time, pretended to know what people knew and believed and did 2000 years ago.

You do that a lot. It doesn't matter to you what is actually written.

I was just speculating on how the gospels could have come about, I was not commenting on what was written. There is speculation from non believers about how the gospels came about and that does take into consideration what was written. That is actually the reason for the speculation that puts the authors and dates of writing into the hands of people who did not know Jesus and what He said and did.

Why do you use the term "skeptical"? By far, the majority of Biblical historians were and are believers looking for evidence to substantiate their beliefs.

Skeptical because the main assumption seems to be that the accounts had to have been written after the prophesied destruction of the temple. That is secular historian assumption.

It doesn't matter to you what Biblical scholars (Christian and Hebrew) have actually found from years of research. You just have your unfounded opinions and speculations.

You seem to be assuming that all Biblical scholars say the same thing and no doubt that modern Biblical scholarship is better than older Biblical scholarship.
I guess we choose our scholars to some extent by what we believe or want to believe.

 

[ChristineM]

The scriptures you quoted can be translated different way to show a more local flood.
The interpretation overall is dependant on what science tells us, as least I try to make mine dependent on that.

The fluid dynamics of water show that, according to the bible the flood can only have been global.

 

[Brian2]

Top dogs indeed.

The dinosaurs were here a lot longer than humans have been here.
Roaches were here even longer.

Top dogs? Humans? Ask me again in a couple of million years.

We are the ones who have the control over the future of the planet and the environment, we rule it and without consideration and mercy at times. Will be change before it is too late? Have we already gone too far?

 

[Brian2]

Nonsense.

Christians are into unconditional belief based on
zero data.

Science does conditional acceptance of probabilities based on data.

Could hardly be more different.

Probably there are conditions for the faith of Christians.
Christians are rational also.
Science does one thing but people who believe all of what science says (accepted science) are doing something else. The assumptions of science have already been made by these people. No God is assumed to be true. Truth is the prerogative of science only in their opinion and even that is conditional and only probable because of the previously accepted assumptions.

 

[Brian2]

The whole book can be - and is-
interpreted in any way that suits the reader.

You said it. How do you interpret it?

 

[Brian2]

The fluid dynamics of water show that, according to the bible the flood can only have been global.

How is that according to the Bible?

 

[ChristineM]

How is that according to the Bible?

Genesis 7:20

 

[Brian2]

Genesis 7:20

If I was translating the Bible I would say that it covered the high hills, which is legitimate, and I would say it covered all the land instead of all the earth, (which is legitimate also).
But tradition is tradition even when science says otherwise.
There was no reason to use high hills instead of mountains or land instead of earth before the discoveries of science about the size of the flood.

 

[Audie]

Probably there are conditions for the faith of Christians.
Christians are rational also.
Science does one thing but people who believe all of what science says (accepted science) are doing something else. The assumptions of science have already been made by these people. No God is assumed to be true. Truth is the prerogative of science only in their opinion and even that is conditional and only probable because of the previously accepted assumptions.

Probably-? but you can't think of any, for lo,
if it "depends", or it's "only if", it's not Faith.
Job didn't say "only if there stupid bronze
scorpions quit stinging!"
Yourr "science does one thing" is just nonsense
in search of some imaginary hypocrisy to
pick on- as if it made any difference if you did
discover an example.
You cannot name an "assumption of science".
If you did it's irrelevant anyway.

The very nature of religion is to assume there's
some sort of God's. Zero evidence requires
assuming and making things up,

Your last confused sentence sank itself before it got to the second word.
Science does not do " truth".
No analysis based off such a grossly
Ignorant error is going to have any value at all.

 

[Audie]

If I was translating the Bible I would say that it covered the high hills, which is legitimate, and I would say it covered all the land instead of all the earth, (which is legitimate also).
But tradition is tradition even when science says otherwise.
There was no reason to use high hills instead of mountains or land instead of earth before the discoveries of science about the size of the flood.

How did they find out it prevailed 15 cubits
above the highest hill?
GPS to the site and drop a sounding line to
the summit?

 

[ecco]

As Luke says, his stories came from witnesses and people who had been there from the beginning.

Luke is written as a first-hand account. It obviously isn't. Where does Luke admit he was not an eyewitness?

How does Luke know what transpired between Zacharias and the angle?

18And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.​

That is actually the reason for the speculation that puts the authors and dates of writing into the hands of people who did not know Jesus and what He said and did.

Speculation or a reasonable evaluation of the available facts? There is a difference.

Skeptical because the main assumption seems to be that the accounts had to have been written after the prophesied destruction of the temple. That is secular historian assumption.

So, according to you, no Christian or Hebrew scholar came to the same conclusion. Please cite some of these secular historians and their documented religious beliefs.

Also, I see you used the phrase "prophesied destruction of the temple". Is this the prophecy?

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
​

When was the Gospel According to Mark Written? (my emphasis)

Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course.

Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.
​

In any case, how does Mark know what Jesus said?

You seem to be assuming that all Biblical scholars say the same thing ...

That would be an incorrect assumption. My thinking is: If there are 10 biblical scholars there will be 20 different interpretations of any aspect of scripture.

 

[ecco]

We are the ones who have the control over the future of the planet and the environment, we rule it and without consideration and mercy at times. Will be change before it is too late? Have we already gone too far?

Currently, we have some limited control. For millions of years, no species had "control". The earth had volcanos, tsunamis, meteor strikes, ice ages, droughts, etc. Roaches survived them all. That sort of makes them top dogs.

 

[Brian2]

Probably-? but you can't think of any, for lo,
if it "depends", or it's "only if", it's not Faith.

It's faith but not blind faith.

You cannot name an "assumption of science".
If you did it's irrelevant anyway.

"All phenomena have natural causes" is one assumption.
That is not irrelevant.

The very nature of religion is to assume there's
some sort of God's. Zero evidence requires
assuming and making things up,

That sounds like an assumption based on your beliefs, or lack of beliefs.
At least I have chosen a religion based on events in history and not just philosophy. That's a good start imo.

Your last confused sentence sank itself before it got to the second word.
Science does not do " truth".
No analysis based off such a grossly
Ignorant error is going to have any value at all.

Science does not do truth but still atheists tell me that science is the only right way to find the truth.

 

[Brian2]

Currently, we have some limited control. For millions of years, no species had "control". The earth had volcanos, tsunamis, meteor strikes, ice ages, droughts, etc. Roaches survived them all. That sort of makes them top dogs.

Nothing has had a conscious control over the survival of the earth's environment except man. We are not ignorant of the consequences of our actions these days.