The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by reed9 I want to make admitting to belief in God as embarrassing for an adult as admitting they believe in Santa Claus, but I will defend to the utmost your right to believe in Santa Claus or God.

Why? Someone's admission of a belief in God does not harm you. Acting on that belief, however, such as by trying to remove the teaching of evolution from school because "that's not what the Bible sez," is where I draw the line. If someone wants to belief, however, fine. I see no need to denigrate it.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Bible, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Bible but in fact-- The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case. I'm not saying that because they have relied on it then it's evidence. I'm saying as such, the burden of proof is on you, before you dismiss any and every reference to it blanketly. This the agnathiests fail to do, or to even attempt.

The Bible never portrayed itself as a book of science. It portrays itself as a book of faith. If you wish to extend it into science (literalism and infallibility) then the burden is on you to justify the extension and using it in ways never intended by the Bible itself.

Originally Posted by SL00b That may be, but that's hardly supportive of the statement that public education is based entirely on the Bible.

I agree. Like I said, "some" history. Ol' Blue got it with some distortion.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Is that the crux of this idea of "trolling?" I'm here to impress people?

No. The ostentation comes in any public display, or insistance that one's holy books be used in public places, such as schools.

Trust me on this one; you've not impressed anyone here.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 The Bible never portrayed itself as a book of science. It portrays itself as a book of faith. If you wish to extend it into science (literalism and infallibility) then the burden is on you to justify the extension and using it in ways never intended by the Bible itself.

Everything cannot be distilled purely into science. The Bible portrays itself as a book applicable to every area of life, including (certainly not majoring in) science. As such, it is not fairly, blanketly, precluded as evidence of the facts of life. Those who do so are prejudiced.

Originally Posted by moxieman99 I agree. Like I said, "some" history. Ol' Blue got it with some distortion.

I'd say it came with enough distortion to make Jimi Hendrix' jaw drop.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Quite wreckless. Supposing there is one living eternal God (which IMFirmO is self-evident). In that case it would be quite foolish to say something like what you just said because, it's probable, he did create the universe, in which case you've just made a spectacle of yourself before the whole creation, not to mention God.

Oh, boy. Hello, Pascal's Wager.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Agreed. Particularly good word choice, a key

Thank you. Obviously the statement worked as intended, because I would never contend that human logic is the only key. An extremely effective one, yes.

You know what's not a key? Searching your feelings like some jedi trying to consult with his midichlorians for what he KNOWS is true. You really shouldn't do that anymore. It's obviously not working out. It's time to try another way.

Originally Posted by bluegospel God created humans to live a joint life with God. The degree to which a human works together with God or resists him, in large part determines their ultimate success or failure. In other words, if the clay has a mind completely of its own, God's best effort, be it perfect, doesn't compensate for their defiance.

Who put that defiance in the clay? God.

Originally Posted by bluegospel If a significant segment of the world, in virtually every place, has relied on a particular book, the Bible, for over 4 millenia, as an authoritative evidential document, then it is clearly not for me to prove the Bible but in fact--

This is an argument from popularity and an argument from antiquity.

The burden of proof is on those who insist that it cannot be admitted as evidence in any and every case.

Aside from the fallacious way you arrived at this conclusion, we have in fact given you reasons why the Bible cannot be considered evidence for God. It is, in essence, begging the question - to accept the Bible evidence for God means tacitly accepting that God wrote and/or inspired the Bible first. Circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. And, as I said before, there is no reason for someone who doesn't already believe to choose he Bible over another religion's stories, as mentioned with the Veda.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Everything cannot be distilled purely into science. The Bible portrays itself as a book applicable to every area of life, including (certainly not majoring in) science. As such, it is not fairly, blanketly, precluded as evidence of the facts of life. Those who do so are prejudiced.

The Bible is packed with LOLscience, but we've covered this before.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Originally Posted by moxieman99 Why? Someone's admission of a belief in God does not harm you. Acting on that belief, however, such as by trying to remove the teaching of evolution from school because "that's not what the Bible sez," is where I draw the line. If someone wants to belief, however, fine. I see no need to denigrate it.

Because we have millions of people who do act. As I said before, we have suicide bombers, murders of abortion doctors, "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda, the entire Republican Party in thrall to the Religious Right. And how can someone honestly believe and not act? If someone truly and with all of their heart believes that almost everyone around them is going to hell, to suffer literal eternal damnation, or literally believes that Obama might be the antichrist, or any of the other insane things people believe, surely they would act on that belief?

Originally Posted by SL00b Who put that defiance in the clay? God.

Wrong. God created everything, which was initially good, including free will--which is 100% good. Like a glass of water. A glass of water is arguably good. It's not bad, it's good. If I swish the water around in the glass it basically stays in the glass. It moves about, but basically stays put in the glass. Imagine water had a mind of its own (I realize this is silly). That's not necessarily bad. For this illustration God decided to create water to have a mind of its own, to move about as it pleases, and in his estimation this was good.

Now, you have two among other scenarios:

1) All the water everwhere converges on the surface of the earth. The result--all life on earth, wiped out.

2) Water is well behaved, acting with just the properties we now know it to have. It's useful and beneficial for life.

That's free will! It's good as God creates it. The course the creatures take who exercise it may be good, may be bad. As God created it, it's good.

It's like my own home-grown argument against the classic defense of marijuana (forgive me for indulging)--typical claim: "God created it!"

bluegospel: "So he created it! He didn't roll it up and light it! He created poisonous berries too, but not for humans to eat!"

He created free will for a purpose. We choose either to conform to that purpose or defy it.

Originally Posted by bluegospel A glass of water is arguably good. It's not bad, it's good.

False. It is neither good nor bad. You're thinking in binaries which is false dichotomy. Glass of water is neither good nor bad. It simply exists. Its existence means nothing and has no moral vaule. It is not "good". It simply is.

Originally Posted by bluegospel That's free will! It's good as God creates it. The course the creatures take who exercise it may be good, may be bad. As God created it, it's good.

Then the god does not love its creation.

Originally Posted by bluegospel He created free will for a purpose. We choose either to conform to it or defy it.

That's not the free will. It is using death threats to force obedience. "Obey or die". Which implies non-omnipotence, by the way.

Originally Posted by bluegospel He created poisonous berries too, but not for humans to eat!"

Actually, you might want to check the link provided by Sloob (this time he happened to actually have a point).
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
See #16. Also If I were you I'd think how to address multiple issues pointed out in this list. I'm especially interested in part that talks about dragons, unicorns, giants and immortal worms. Plus there are multiple mistakes. I think you asked somebody to show you mistakes in bible, and this list does just that.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Everything cannot be distilled purely into science. The Bible portrays itself as a book applicable to every area of life, including (certainly not majoring in) science.

First, nobody said that everything could be distilled into science. The problem comes when someone tries to portray something as science when it isn't. That's why the Bible cannot be allowed into science class and cannot be allowed to decide which science theories should be taught in science class.

Second, science is not an "area of life." It is a subject of intellectual pursuit. Intellectual curiousity is an area of life. Understanding the Bible will certainly help people be good, moral, citizens, and teach them intellectual humility, but it will do nothing about science.

I would like to mention one thing that has been by and large ignored in this discussion; supposing that the world was in fact created by God ( which many contributors to this thread believe) the logical question that follows this assumption would be - which one? Every religion of the world has credible texts that authenticates their belief system. How can you determine which one is true? And only one can be, for all religions are mutually exclusive. So, even if those who believe do defeat us atheists, the battle is but half won.

Originally Posted by DJ Shaji Every religion of the world has credible texts that authenticates their belief system. How can you determine which one is true?

In some religions, if you pray to the wrong god you go to hell, so, given two religions that say that thing about god, both of them claiming they are right...

everyone go to hell... :-)