Why don't you believe in God/s?

[Valjean]

nPeace said: ↑
This is how it work with true Christians... They believe in allowing God's spirit to guide them.

So why has God's spirit guided them to so many conflicting opinions?

 

[nPeace]

"]How does this differ from what I've said?
Again, how does this differ from what I've said? In science nothing is 'proven', all we have are levels of confidence. Germ theory, heliocentric theory, round-Earth theory -- all are "uncertain truths," all are theories, all are also facts and all are provisional.
There is a hierarchy of levels of confidence, but nothing is ever "proven." This does not make science a religion. It's a research modality.
I still don't see how you're connecting it to religion.

Let me see if I can jog your memory.

No actual evidence for a God.
No need for such an extraordinary explanation of why things are as they are.
Religion is a belief or set of beliefs that manifests an ethic among its adherents.
rants.

Oh? Seems there are many varying opinions that are new to me.
So wouldn't that make various scientific theories religion - theories and sets of beliefs - synonyms and related words | Macmillan Dictionary if that's the case?

No, I don't see how. Science, sometimes unfortunately, is only concerned with facts, not what's done with them.
Moreover, science is anti-faith, skeptical of everything, and always willing to revise its views as new evidence emerges. Science follows evidence, not scripture, folklore, mythology or commonsense; Anything lacking actual, empirical support is considered hypothesis, at best.

Right... and what are hypotheses, and where do they come from?

They are proposed explanations or syntheses. Scientific hypotheses are based on facts, observations and reason.

I suppose you mean a scientific fact. A fact doesn't change - here today gone tomorrow.

noun
plural noun: hypotheses

1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
   "professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
   synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More
   • PHILOSOPHY
     a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Evidence in science is subject to change.
They are ideas proposed by men, not established facts.
supposition
an uncertain belief.
"they were working on the supposition that his death was murder"
synonyms: belief, surmise, idea, notion, suspicion, conjecture, speculation, inference, theory, hypothesis, postulation, guess, feeling, hunch, assumption, presumption
"her supposition is based on previous results"

All the time I am trying to draw your attention to what you said.
If A=L, and F=L, then F=A.
True?
If religion = a set of beliefs, and scientific hypotheses = a set of beliefs, then scientific hypotheses = religion;
True.

From your reasoning...
Either the above is true, or religion is more than (>), not equal to (!=) a set of beliefs. False.
Okay?

But how is it, then, that the Bible has generated so many competing sects, with different theological interpretations? How does it remain so ambiguous and so filled with apparent errors? In a science text these would be fixed in the 2nd edition.

Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia
I can't put my hand on the article I was reading on Wikipedia of the ongoing conflict of scientific theories.
Perhaps you can explain to me, why there are conflicts on what theories are 'correct'. If when answering, you don't find the answer, ask again, and I will see if I can help you.

Who tests the Bible? True, there's a great deal of theological argument, but where are the actual tests to resolve them? When errors are found, why aren't they removed? Why are they covered up, brushed over or explained away with convoluted sophistry? Why are questions discouraged; even considered heresy?
It seems to me that most Christians consider the Bible writ in stone. Questioning is discouraged. Real testing isn't done, and most Christians aren't even aware of the controversies, ambiguities and errors.

When religion makes an assertion of fact it assumes the burden of proof, if it expects to be believed. The scientific method is the gold standard of research modalities.
I don't have any problem with how you test, as long as you use appropriate tools and methods. A meteorologist and cardiologist accept each other's findings. Both use scientific methodology.
The religious, on the other hand, have been using feelings, inspiration and scriptural debate for two millennia, and there's more disagreement today than ever.
Quite so. See above.


They both use the scientific method and accept each other's findings.

Who tests the Bible?
Like I said, it's testable by the average Joe.
Does a car owner need to go to a lab, or a mechanic in order to test if the car works?
Does a youth need to go to a rocket scientist to test whether a pillow will knock his sister unconscious.
We test, experiment, and observe things on a daily basis. Nobody scrutinizes every possible thing on earth. That's why different fields of science (study, knowledge) exists - including neurology which can even touch on areas dealing with perception..
Why is the Bible under scrutiny? It's not because scientists want to put it under a microscope, is it?
It's because adherents of a belief system - aka atheist want to challenge a belief in god(s).
Isn't that why the god debate takes place? Science doesn't bother with such things - the supernatural is not considered, remember.
Empirical evidence isn't required to prove God's existence, nor the Bible's authenticity.

If any require that information the need to look elsewhere.

The atheism bit I got here: "I understand that that seems to be something that atheist tend to do" -- your words.


Did you read these links? They're exactly what I and others have been trying to explain to you. How on Earth do you see them as supporting your assertions or undermining ours?

You seem to be missing the point of why I bring in things. It was just based on two statements you made, but more than likely you didn't mean it as they appear.

The 'facts' I speak of are undisputed observations. Observations may be clarified, or added to, but they remain real observations. Science attempts to fit these puzzle pieces into a bigger picture.
A hypothesis is an educated guess at how these pieces relate to one another. Science tests hypotheses. As evidence accumulates and all attempts to falsify it fail, it may rise to science' highest level of confidence -- a theory.

It's science that believes truth is absolute and unchanging. Religion believes it's capricious and malleable. It believes God reaches down and tweaks these 'unchanging laws' to achieve desired ends. He meddles. ...

How did atheists come up again? Why not metallurgists, carpenters or hairdressers?
Are you thinking that I and others are arguing from an atheist perspective?

But as long as you brought it up, I do, indeed, believe your average atheist understands both science and religion better than the average Christian.
Why Do Atheists Know More About Religion? - The Atlantic

The Bible and Religion are two completely different things.

What are you talking about? Who isn't familiar with the basic tenets of Islam? Who hasn't followed the cultural debate since 9/11?
Islam considers the Quran to be the revealed word of God. There are sites all over the internet and hundreds of YouTube videos asserting just this.

Me -- I could point to some inconsistencies, but you know what a contentious curmudgeon I am.

Also, as an atheist, wouldn't I be expected to have a better grasp of Islam than the average religious?

Your words -

The Quran claims absolute, unchanging truth, The Vedas claim it, Norse mythology claims it -- yet they disagree. Without testing, belief/faith in any of these would be foolish and illogical. What makes the Bible's claim of absolute truth more reliable than the Quran's? Neither tests its claims.

My question -

Could you back up what you just said, with visible evidence please. Where in the Quran does it claims absolute, unchanging truth?

I am so disappointed

 

[nPeace]

So why has God's spirit guided them to so many conflicting opinions?

Sorry. Please pardon my carelessness. I actually wasn't taking into consideration that the world views Christian, as all those who fall under the bracket of 'believing in Jesus Christ'. That's not the way the Bible portrays Christian. In the same way that the Bible speaks of Church very different to how church is identified today.
Thank you for having a 'hawk's eye'.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Atheist want to see God to believe.
I want to see the Christian who read it the way you did, to believe you. Thanks in advance.

Well. There are christians who claim the bible is perfect, thus it pretty much has to be taken literally.

Sadly? Their cognitive dissonance simply ignores the bible verses that describe a flat earth. And anything else in that Bronze Age Myth that makes no sense at all.

Just as YOU do. You know the earth is round-- but you cannot admit the bible is WRONG.

But it is.

Pretty much the whole thing, in fact....

Like, the parts of the NT where slaves are commanded to OBEY their masters.

That's absolutely immoral, that's what that is. One of hundreds of bible-fails.

 

[Windwalker]

Okay. So you explained yourself, and according to you, there is no truth.

According to you that's what I believe. But that's not what I said. What I didn't get into because it's enough just cracking the lid on this without digging further into the jar, is that Truth does exists, but it is not something the human mind in its conceptual frameworks can possibly comprehend. Truth, with a capital T, or Divine Reality is not a propositional truth. All human perceptions of Truth are at best relative reflections of themselves plastered on the Face of God, like zits, calling this pimple truth and other pimples lies because they don't fit into our brains right.

I'll explain further....

Let me explain. If you think something is true - notice carefully that word - think - something to be true, it does not become true because you think so.

It becomes the truth to you, because you believe it is. If your believe it is true, you create its reality for yourself. There's a great saying I heard that says, "The God you don't believe in doesn't exist". Let's see if you can unpack that one before I try to explain. Any ideas?

It's only your thoughts, which could be, wrong, and more likely is.

You're getting close to how I understand this.....

If you keep discovering, and altering, or adjusting what you thought you knew, then the stark realization should hit you square in the face.

Really? That then means you now know the "real truth" of it because you changed how you thought about it? You're still thinking about it, just from another perspective, a different angle, a different context, and "wham, it hits square in the face," you've found a new truth you didn't see before, when you saw the truth, and the time before that when what you believed was truth for you, and on and on it goes into infinity.

Keep searching pal... you haven't found the truth. It's there though - unchanging.
You the one who needs to keep changing - your wrong ideas.

"Keep searching pal"? Are you serious? Deary me, have I struck a nerve for you? You honestly don't know anything about me or really what my thoughts are on these things, yet you hastily race to say I have wrong ideas, when you presently don't grasp what they actually are? Touchy about this?

Let me illustrate it this way.
So you are working out a mathematical equation. You're done and you take it to the tutor. Wrong.
Say you did it 999 times and the tutor says wrong.
Yeah, you go ahead and argue with the tutor that he needs to change the answer.

But what is this truth you think you have found? Is it a math problem? What exactly do you think you have uncovered using your reasoning mind, reading texts, thinking about them, puzzling, etc? You think you found the teacher's double secret test answers?

It simply boils down to this. Keep adjusting your understanding until it is in line with truth.

And at what point, and how, do you conclude you think you've figured this all out? What's the litmus test for validity there? Can you explain?

If you get it right, just as the tutor will put a big long tick - perhaps in green, and you start grinning from ear to ear... the ultimate mathematician and source of truth will reward you with what he has in store for honest humble truth seekers. In the case of us Christian believers - we look forward to everlasting life.

And what is that reward you believe you have gotten now that makes you know all the test answers? Your belief you do?

 

[Valjean]

Let me see if I can jog your memory.

All the time I am trying to draw your attention to what you said.
If A=L, and F=L, then F=A.
True?
If religion = a set of beliefs, and scientific hypotheses = a set of beliefs, then scientific hypotheses = religion;
True.

So if a duck is a bird, and a crow is a bird, then a crow is a duck?

No. A hypothesis is a proposition, and a scientific theory, unlike religion, has nothing to do with ethics.
Religions are generally faith-based. Faith is belief without sufficient evidence. The essence of science is the active attempt to replace faith with tested, evidence-based fact.

Superseded scientific theories - Wikipedia

I can't put my hand on the article I was reading on Wikipedia of the ongoing conflict of scientific theories.
Perhaps you can explain to me, why there are conflicts on what theories are 'correct'. If when answering, you don't find the answer, ask again, and I will see if I can help you.

Note that Wiki's list the 'scientific theories' were never really scientific theories. At best they were theorums -- proposals. Spontaneous generation and Lamarkianism, for example, were folklore and speculation. They were never evidence based proposals, and, when science tested them, they fell flat.

As far as conflict in science, that's how science works -- always collecting evidence, challenging it, proposing different interpretations, testing it; trying to disprove it. Science is a process of clarifying and resolving these 'conflicts'.
The conflict is usually in the details, not in the basic theories. The goal is to replace faith with fact.

Who tests the Bible?
Like I said, it's testable by the average Joe.
Does a car owner need to go to a lab, or a mechanic in order to test if the car works?
Does a youth need to go to a rocket scientist to test whether a pillow will knock his sister unconscious.

I don't see how these are analogous.

We test, experiment, and observe things on a daily basis. Nobody scrutinizes every possible thing on earth. That's why different fields of science (study, knowledge) exists - including neurology which can even touch on areas dealing with perception..
Why is the Bible under scrutiny? It's not because scientists want to put it under a microscope, is it?
It's because adherents of a belief system - aka atheist want to challenge a belief in god(s).

No, it's because the religious keep making baseless assertions. Atheists have no belief system, and few have any interest in challenging anything, and science would be happy to ignore the whole issue.
I still don't see how you're testing the Bible. How are you attempting to resolve the known ambiguities, falsehoods and unfounded claims? Why are these problems not corrected?

Isn't that why the god debate takes place? Science doesn't bother with such things - the supernatural is not considered, remember.
Empirical evidence isn't required to prove God's existence, nor the Bible's authenticity.

The God debate is driven by the religious, not the unbelievers. We're just responding to your preaching.
Yes, science can't deal with the unobservable and untestable. The supernatural is outside its scope.

How is empirical evidence not required to prove God's existence? Evidence is always required, for any assertion.
What evidence do you propose for testing the bible, feelings? inspiration? familiarity?
None of these have ever resulted in any consensus of belief.

You seem to be missing the point of why I bring in things. It was just based on two statements you made, but more than likely you didn't mean it as they appear.

OK,
"A hypothesis is an educated guess at how these pieces relate to one another."
"It's science that believes truth is absolute and unchanging."
Apparently I am missing the point. What is it about these you don't understand, or that you disagree with? Are you thinking that science' varying hypotheses constitute inconstancy or change? No, the conflicting propositions and arguments are steps in a process. Science attempts to resolve them in an effort to discover truth.
Please clarify the problem you're seeing here.

 

[nPeace]

According to you that's what I believe. But that's not what I said. What I didn't get into because it's enough just cracking the lid on this without digging further into the jar, is that Truth does exists, but it is not something the human mind in its conceptual frameworks can possibly comprehend. Truth, with a capital T, or Divine Reality is not a propositional truth. All human perceptions of Truth are at best relative reflections of themselves plastered on the Face of God, like zits, calling this pimple truth and other pimples lies because they don't fit into our brains right.

I'll explain further....


It becomes the truth to you, because you believe it is. If your believe it is true, you create its reality for yourself. There's a great saying I heard that says, "The God you don't believe in doesn't exist". Let's see if you can unpack that one before I try to explain. Any ideas?


You're getting close to how I understand this.....


Really? That then means you now know the "real truth" of it because you changed how you thought about it? You're still thinking about it, just from another perspective, a different angle, a different context, and "wham, it hits square in the face," you've found a new truth you didn't see before, when you saw the truth, and the time before that when what you believed was truth for you, and on and on it goes into infinity.


"Keep searching pal"? Are you serious? Deary me, have I struck a nerve for you? You honestly don't know anything about me or really what my thoughts are on these things, yet you hastily race to say I have wrong ideas, when you presently don't grasp what they actually are? Touchy about this?


But what is this truth you think you have found? Is it a math problem? What exactly do you think you have uncovered using your reasoning mind, reading texts, thinking about them, puzzling, etc? You think you found the teacher's double secret test answers?


And at what point, and how, do you conclude you think you've figured this all out? What's the litmus test for validity there? Can you explain?


And what is that reward you believe you have gotten now that makes you know all the test answers? Your belief you do?

Very good.
I just would like to correct one thing.
It can easily happen, so ! totally understand.
Sometimes when reading post, it can appear that you are the target of a rant, but that may not be the case.
What I try to do when reading posts, is try not to assume. If someone seem to be making a general statement, I leave it at that. I don't try to determine if they are referring to me. No... I'm not thin-skinned.
So o with that said, this

Keep searching pal... you haven't found the truth. It's there though - unchanging.
You the one who needs to keep changing - your wrong ideas.

was not referring to you. It was in general, as though I were talking to an imaginary person.
However, in looking over the post I realize that I should apologize, since I see how you could easily believe I was addressing you.
Normally when generalizing, I would say something like, "If one thinks..." or "one has to...", but I forgot to do that in this case, so... my apologies.

You make some very good points, and I like your self control.
I get you clear clear clear, like crystal.
... which is why I am puzzled.
Don't you think it would be better then for you to say: "What one considers to be truth is relative, but truth (or divine truth - if you prefer) is absolute."
I totally get you though, but I would still say truth is absolute - because I really am referring to the truth Jesus Christ spoke of. For example, someone may see me reading a book and say, "Ah, you are reading a book." and I might respond by saying, "That is the truth.", but in my mind, I am not thinking about divine truth, or absolute truth.
What do you think?

 

[nPeace]

So if a duck is a bird, and a crow is a bird, then a crow is a duck?

Haaaaaaaaaaa Ha Ha Ha.
No dude.
It goes like this.
If a bird is something that flies, and crows fly, then a crow is a bird.
Get it?
If religion is a system of beliefs, and a hypothesis is a system of beliefs, then a hypothesis is a religion.

I'll get back to you later, I just saw this and had to respond right away.

Thanks for the laugh buddy LOL!

 

[Windwalker]

However, in looking over the post I realize that I should apologize, since I see how you could easily believe I was addressing you.
Normally when generalizing, I would say something like, "If one thinks..." or "one has to...", but I forgot to do that in this case, so... my apologies.

Fair enough. I can see how that can happen, and yes, I too try to choose words where "you" doesn't convey I mean them directly. Our system of language leaves a lot to be desired, the source of much confused meanings.

You make some very good points, and I like your self control.
I get you clear clear clear, like crystal.
... which is why I am puzzled.
Don't you think it would be better then for you to say: "What one considers to be truth is relative, but truth (or divine truth - if you prefer) is absolute."

Yes, that would reflect my views, but why I make a point about differentiating Divine Truth as not a propositional truth, is because people like to think that that how they view Divine Truth is that Truth itself, which in reality it is still "what ones considers to be truth". In reality, it is still a relative truth. So anyone claiming that something they read in the Bible is "Not my words (or ideas), but God's!", is deceiving themselves. It is what they consider is God's Truth, based upon all the relative positions of their minds they are reading it through.

Divine Truth, cannot be held as a argument. It simply is what is, and the best we can do is assume some relative position on what that may in fact be. Doesn't matter if we claim God tells us directly. It's still our perception of it. Agree?

I totally get you though, but I would still say truth is absolute - because I really am referring to the truth Jesus Christ spoke of.

Jesus spoke of the Divine, which is Truth. But to point to his words and say how you read them is that truth, is a self-deception. I can point to the moon, but because you can can clearly see the shape of my finger, does not mean you are realizing the moon, or even actually looking towards it.

For example, someone may see me reading a book and say, "Ah, you are reading a book." and I might respond by saying, "That is the truth.", but in my mind, I am not thinking about divine truth, or absolute truth.
What do you think?

Well, yes, when we speak of common things like statements of fact, we use that term. But the error we make is to take the way we perceive and interact with the mundane world and transpose that way of thinking, and speaking, to the Divine, or the Absolute.

That breaks apart quite quickly we find because relative truths are based on a dualistic perception of "this and not that", a world of opposites, a world of boundaries. God has no boundaries. God is Infinite, and therefore our language, and all subsequent modes of thinking which use mental objects based on dualistic language, cannot speak directly, of Absolute Truth. It is always partial and limited, even if it is about God. At best, less-bounded language such as poetry, or music, speak more Truth than volumes of words on the pages of our religious texts.

 

[Valjean]

Haaaaaaaaaaa Ha Ha Ha.
No dude.
It goes like this.
If a bird is something that flies, and crows fly, then a crow is a bird.
Get it?
If religion is a system of beliefs, and a hypothesis is a system of beliefs, then a hypothesis is a religion.

I'll get back to you later, I just saw this and had to respond right away.

Thanks for the laugh buddy LOL!

LOL -- so a bird is something that flies, and a 747 is something that flies....

 

[nPeace]

LOL -- so a bird is something that flies, and a 747 is something that flies....

Okay, okay, we could go on with this forever.
So to make sure we don't do that.
Religion is not a set of beliefs, Full stop.

 

[Valjean]

Okay, okay, we could go on with this forever.
So to make sure we don't do that.
Religion is not a set of beliefs, Full stop.

OK. How do you characterise it?

 

[nPeace]

Fair enough. I can see how that can happen, and yes, I too try to choose words where "you" doesn't convey I mean them directly. Our system of language leaves a lot to be desired, the source of much confused meanings.


Yes, that would reflect my views, but why I make a point about differentiating Divine Truth as not a propositional truth, is because people like to think that that how they view Divine Truth is that Truth itself, which in reality it is still "what ones considers to be truth". In reality, it is still a relative truth. So anyone claiming that something they read in the Bible is "Not my words (or ideas), but God's!", is deceiving themselves. It is what they consider is God's Truth, based upon all the relative positions of their minds they are reading it through.

Divine Truth, cannot be held as a argument. It simply is what is, and the best we can do is assume some relative position on what that may in fact be. Doesn't matter if we claim God tells us directly. It's still our perception of it. Agree?


Jesus spoke of the Divine, which is Truth. But to point to his words and say how you read them is that truth, is a self-deception. I can point to the moon, but because you can can clearly see the shape of my finger, does not mean you are realizing the moon, or even actually looking towards it.


Well, yes, when we speak of common things like statements of fact, we use that term. But the error we make is to take the way we perceive and interact with the mundane world and transpose that way of thinking, and speaking, to the Divine, or the Absolute.

That breaks apart quite quickly we find because relative truths are based on a dualistic perception of "this and not that", a world of opposites, a world of boundaries. God has no boundaries. God is Infinite, and therefore our language, and all subsequent modes of thinking which use mental objects based on dualistic language, cannot speak directly, of Absolute Truth. It is always partial and limited, even if it is about God. At best, less-bounded language such as poetry, or music, speak more Truth than volumes of words on the pages of our religious texts.

I understand.
My feelings on the matter, is that I wouldn't make an issue out of it, because we live in an imperfect world, and to make issue out of things that can affect our salvation in no way, is only a distraction.
The truth is, the Bible like everything is this world is not perfect, but to some, it's perfect in a relative sense.
I'm sure they don't think it's perfect in an absolute sense, just as they know that when the Bible says Job was perfect, it did not mean in an absolute sense.
Just as when we say, a flower has died. How we understand the 'death' of the flower, is still relative to the truth of what happened to the flower.
But who can condemn us for that?
I remember talking with someone one time, and he was making the point that a leaf that falls to the ground does not die, even when it withers and disintegrates. His argument was, it takes on a different form of energy that is used in a different way.
I said, "Okay. I understand what you are saying."

Dude, that's interestingly, but so what? What does that have to do with the price of gas?
In other words, I'm not saying acquiring knowledge is not a good thing, and digging deep, but I just don't think we should make an issue out of something, unless we think it's importance is of relevance.
I understand if some see it's importance as relevant.
Do you see it's importance as relevant to the search for truth?

 

[nPeace]

OK. How do you characterise it?

Religion in the most basic sense I understand it to be, is a form of worship.
This is the definition given here:
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

Wiki would go into more details.

 

[nPeace]

Religion in the most basic sense I understand it to be, is a form of worship.
This is the definition given here:
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

Wiki would go into more details.

By the way, admittedly, I was being difficult about the hypothesis thing. Don't hold it against me.

 

[Valjean]

Religion in the most basic sense I understand it to be, is a form of worship.
This is the definition given here:
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
   • a particular system of faith and worship.
     plural noun: religions
     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
     "consumerism is the new religion"

Wiki would go into more details.

So how, by this definition, is atheism a religion or belief system?

 

[nPeace]

So how, by this definition, is atheism a religion or belief system?

You're asking me? Not me! I didn't say that!

 

[nPeace]

So if a duck is a bird, and a crow is a bird, then a crow is a duck?

Whenever I want a good laugh, I'll remember to come here.

No. A hypothesis is a proposition, and a scientific theory, unlike religion, has nothing to do with ethics.
Religions are generally faith-based. Faith is belief without sufficient evidence. The essence of science is the active attempt to replace faith with tested, evidence-based fact.

Seems you are getting your definitions on the religious wrong.
To respond to this, I'll try to see if I might be able to help you get your answer to the question you asked here.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)
Biblical faith, or Christian faith = Hope in something not seen, but it has substance because there is evidence of it's reality.
I like how these transmissions put it

Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see.
Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen

I know, you think we don't have any evidence for God.
I think... atheist have convinced themselves of that.

The likely reason (I guess) people say atheism is a religion is because it requires faith to believe some of the things its members believe. One for example is that all life sprang from a common ancestor, and evolved to different organisms.
If atheist could bring that common ancestor, and show them, or produce the video evidence, maybe people would stop saying they have a religion.

Note that Wiki's list the 'scientific theories' were never really scientific theories. At best they were theorums -- proposals. Spontaneous generation and Lamarkianism, for example, were folklore and speculation. They were never evidence based proposals, and, when science tested them, they fell flat.

Dude, I'm telling you, of all the people on these forums, you really make me work hard. Man.
Take a careful look through the list, and see if what you are saying is true. I'll help you with one.
Steady State theory
I'll add another list since that one may not be inviting, since it's so long. Five astonishing alternative theories about the universe/

As far as conflict in science, that's how science works -- always collecting evidence, challenging it, proposing different interpretations, testing it; trying to disprove it. Science is a process of clarifying and resolving these 'conflicts'.
The conflict is usually in the details, not in the basic theories. The goal is to replace faith with fact.
I don't see how these are analogous.

More hard work.
How scientists resolve conflicting theories
Relativity v quantum mechanics – the battle for the universe[
Scientists can draw very different meanings from the same data, study shows
Quantum randomness or...?
So science depends on diversity. If scientists were all the same, scientific controversy would be rare, but so would scientific progress! Despite their diversity, all of those individual scientists are part of the same scientific community and contribute to the scientific enterprise in valuable ways.
I hope these help answer your question.
Religion isn't much different, although atheist argue otherwise.

No, it's because the religious keep making baseless assertions. Atheists have no belief system, and few have any interest in challenging anything, and science would be happy to ignore the whole issue.
I still don't see how you're testing the Bible. How are you attempting to resolve the known ambiguities, falsehoods and unfounded claims? Why are these problems not corrected?
The God debate is driven by the religious, not the unbelievers. We're just responding to your preaching.
Yes, science can't deal with the unobservable and untestable. The supernatural is outside its scope.

known ambiguities, falsehoods and unfounded claims ?
Are you referring to the evolution theory here? They fit so nicely in there.
I know of none of those in the Bible.
If people say they exist, I see that as no different to people saying they exist in the evolution theory.
So however you resolve that I don't know, but it doesn't bother us. We just

How is empirical evidence not required to prove God's existence? Evidence is always required, for any assertion.
What evidence do you propose for testing the bible, feelings? inspiration? familiarity?
None of these have ever resulted in any consensus of belief.

Sorry. I meant scientific empirical evidence.

OK,

"A hypothesis is an educated guess at how these pieces relate to one another."
"It's science that believes truth is absolute and unchanging."
Apparently I am missing the point. What is it about these you don't understand, or that you disagree with? Are you thinking that science' varying hypotheses constitute inconstancy or change? No, the conflicting propositions and arguments are steps in a process. Science attempts to resolve them in an effort to discover truth.
Please clarify the problem you're seeing here.

In everyday language, the word hypothesis usually refers to an educated guess — or an idea that we are quite uncertain about. Scientific hypotheses, however, are much more informed than any guess and are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic. In addition, hypotheses are often supported by many different lines of evidence — in which case, scientists are more confident in them than they would be in any mere "guess." To further complicate matters, science textbooks frequently misuse the term in a slightly different way. They may ask students to make a hypothesis about the outcome of an experiment (e.g., table salt will dissolve in water more quickly than rock salt will). This is simply a prediction or a guess (even if a well-informed one) about the outcome of an experiment. Scientific hypotheses, on the other hand, have explanatory power — they are explanations for phenomena.

Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess[/quote]

 

[Windwalker]

I understand.
My feelings on the matter, is that I wouldn't make an issue out of it, because we live in an imperfect world, and to make issue out of things that can affect our salvation in no way, is only a distraction.

When it comes to someone proclaiming, "I have the truth, and you believe in a lie. You're going to hell," this is in fact something that does affect their own "salvation", such as that may be, and it impacts those to whom they take such an arrogant position with. It affects everyone. Understand the scope of the reality of things, results in a lot more humility and grace, and that has a direct impact on one's relationship with God, themselves, and the world as a whole.

The truth is, the Bible like everything is this world is not perfect, but to some, it's perfect in a relative sense.

To quite a few it's perfect in the literal, absolute sense. What do you think the whole Chicago Statement is about? Those who subscribe to such a belief, more often than not hide their own responsibility in how they read and interpret and apply the meanings they see behind that statement. "It's not my words! It's God's words!", to justify all their darkness they project upon the Divine Will.

I'm sure they don't think it's perfect in an absolute sense, just as they know that when the Bible says Job was perfect, it did not mean in an absolute sense.

I'm quite sure otherwise. I was part of a group that thought this way, and I have encountered plenty of examples of this here on RF as well as elsewhere. It is a problem of their thinking, that creates this trap of the mind in which they hide self-responsibility within.

Just as when we say, a flower has died. How we understand the 'death' of the flower, is still relative to the truth of what happened to the flower.
But who can condemn us for that?

If someone holds the conventions of language lightly, I understand and respect that. I too use language for convenience sake, or because there really isn't a good way to talk about something otherwise, that I appreciate when someone understands I'm not being literal. But a great many people, a huge number in fact, are unable to think in terms of metaphor. Adam and Eve and the story of the Garden of Eden, are literal, historical and scientific facts in their mind. They are unable to see the meaning of the story, the truths of it, apart from the "facts" of it. And that creates definite problems.

I remember talking with someone one time, and he was making the point that a leaf that falls to the ground does not die, even when it withers and disintegrates. His argument was, it takes on a different form of energy that is used in a different way.
I said, "Okay. I understand what you are saying."

Dude, that's interestingly, but so what? What does that have to do with the price of gas?

What it has to do is to challenge the way we think about things and open up our understanding to other perspectives of truth, which results in us loosening our grips on what we assume to be the facts of reality. Reality is in fact, a perceptual reality, and when we challenge "normal" ways of looking at something, that broadens our experience of it. We end up seeing things we normally could not see, because how we framed its reality in our minds, blinds us to it. What I just said there, is key to this.

In other words, I'm not saying acquiring knowledge is not a good thing, and digging deep, but I just don't think we should make an issue out of something, unless we think it's importance is of relevance.
I understand if some see it's importance as relevant.
Do you see it's importance as relevant to the search for truth?

Yes, I see it quite important, as you can see. Thoughts?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It simply boils down to this. Keep adjusting your understanding until it is in line with truth. If you get it right, just as the tutor will put a big long tick - perhaps in green, and you start grinning from ear to ear... the ultimate mathematician and source of truth will reward you with what he has in store for honest humble truth seekers. In the case of us Christian believers - we look forward to everlasting life.

And you think you’re the tutor, do you?