Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,751-8,800 of 12,463

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Hp wrote: "How is religion a path for others? Is it heading somewhere? Or is it just a jazzed up Santa for grown ups? "

Wanted to comment on this ....

First, I think this is a very individual que..."

I think one of the reasons is not much discussed is that religion as personal philosophy is not a problem, it's a big scary world, whichever man in the sky gets you through that is your call.

it's the people who are equating religion as the equal of science that is more of a concern.

If religion helps you deal with the world within, good, it's when you use it to explain the world without that the debate kicks in.

[Michael]

Hp wrote: "Truth is not a feeling: Truth is the truth. Just because you feel something doesn't make it true."

Guess what. I knew that. Learned it in "Being a Grown-Up 101" and haven't had a lesson since. Love doesn't count, we're all bonkers there. For Love, Hp, you might want to use the phrase "ambiguous contextually biased sensation caused by rampant excitation of macromolecules" as the whole feelings thing already caused a bit of a wobble.

Meanwhile, Hp also wrote "Are these all truthfully correct? Of course not. But for some reason YOUR feelings are correct - a direct conduit to the mind of your god. Just how likely is that?" It's pissfully unlikely, which is why I would never say it.

Furthermore he wrote "Religion is a cop out". Perhaps, perhaps, that's one for a religious person to attack, but I'd say faith isn't. Stand back a step or two, Hp, and your allegiance to science is a secular faith in itself. And your ears just started steaming 'cos I said you had a faith. Ooooh, spooky. But you better have one, even a secular, non-spiritual one, or everything you are saying is meaningless and hollow and utterly dispassionate despite the length of your expositions (says me here,mmm). On the spiritual side, they call it a faith because it is based on (are you ready for it, steel yourself?) feelings, private beliefs.

I knew a Christian at University, one of my favourite people ever. And since I'm not a Christian I was always eager to ask questions about why she believed so fervently and had such a strong but understated (ie, unobtrusive) faith. And not once did she suggest that she had an answer that would satisfy a God-blocker like yourself. It was a private thing in many ways, meaning that had I been inclined to mock (which I certainly was not) it was my problem. Not hers, she was quite content. In the nicest possible way she didn't give a crap what I thought.

So Hp - people's feelings, people's faith. Not your problem. Now,if you had tonight's Lottery numbers, you'd be onto something.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: this idea that because science is not a hundred precent, the creator is an equal and valid theory keeps getting repeated .."

Eventually you will get around to my way of thinking, you just have not got there yet.

Quote: Judge Judy

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: this idea that because science is not a hundred precent, the creator is an equal and valid theory keeps getting repeated .."

Eventually you will get around to my way of thinking, you..."

No, not really.
Your optimism, like your use of the word 'theory' is misplaced.

[Victoria]

Firstly let my just say this, I am in no way religious, I have my own spiritual beliefs but they do not involve a God of any description.

I could not live in a world without science, imagine it! We'd all be stuck in the dark ages! From a technological point of view we would never move forward.

Having said that, while I disagree with most religions quite strongly, a world without religion would be chaos. There are so many people out there who need faith to guide them. It doesn't matter if I or anyone else feels that their faith is misguided, they need it. It is what gets them through darker times and keeps them steady.

So I guess the answer to the original question would be neither, we need both to maintain a balanced world.

[Dean]

Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." I agree with that. True science is going into a problem without preconceived ideas. But science rules anything supernatural out before looking at a question...which I think limits their answers. Do no blame the religious on religion. There are brilliant people that do and do not believe in God.

[cerebus]

Dean wrote: "Einstein once said "blah blah blah""
Few things...
1)This has been raised numerous times before, you're not the first.
2)Look a bit further and you will find Einstein was not as religious as you might think (hint: loads of references and quotes going back through this thread)
3)Even if he was more religious than the pope and the ayatollah combined, it would mean nothing....it's an appeal to authority and irrelevant.

Dean said: "But science rules anything supernatural out before looking at a question..."
Bullshit. Science has looked at numerous supernatural claims and found them all to be unproven. If someone makes a falsifiable supernatural claim, then science is more than happy and capable of taking a look. Fact is not a single one of these supernatural claims has passed the test. Oh there have been a few who have claimed as such, but none of these claims have stood up to repeated tests.

[Dean]

This is why chat forums on religion vs science are a bad idea. Small minds on both sides get aggresive.

[Michael]

I would say, whilst not being Christian enough to feel it in my deeper parts, that there is a tendency amongst some of the more literally-minded atheists on this thread to address the spiritual contributors, not necessarily aggressively as such, but in a way that suggests they're all gullible fudgewits.

I refer to my lovely Christian friend again, always a touchstone of sense and perspective. She believed in God, yes, and allowed it to influence her life and behaviour, usually in a very positive way that directly offended nobody - pretty crucial factor that one, and if you can find any fault with that you're a misery, pedant and a churl. But if you'd told her David Copperfield could really fly she would have laughed like a drain.

That's the problem in a nutshell for all the eager God-blockers - it's all so heavily contextual and tripping out the usual reheated cabbage about science disproving the supernatural (as well it does sometimes, nobody's saying it doesn't) is of no use to someone who believes it in their heart, whatever the hell you say. You may say that's willful blindness, but an absolute devotion to the opposite view is just as blinkered and just as unimpressive.

[Hp]

Michael wrote: "So Hp - people's feelings, people's faith. Not your problem. Now,if you had tonight's Lottery numbers, you'd be onto something. "

What are you on about?

"Love doesn't count, we're all bonkers there."

As Tina Turner said: "What's love got to do with it?"

Faith can be defined as a "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

You may love the idea of a god but that is irrelevant when it comes to reality.

"And your ears just started steaming 'cos I said you had a faith."

I admit I have "faith" in the evidence that points us to the scientific mindset (if having "faith" comes from repeatable experiment, copious evidence and predictive theories - but then that's not faith!)

I don't have "faith" without evidence. That's a BIG difference.

"And not once did she suggest that she had an answer that would satisfy a God-blocker like yourself."

I am not a god blocker: "and with the right evidence it could be a sentient creator (e.g. if it could be arsed to put in a global definitive appearance)."

All I want is some evidence. You know, the stuff you expect for everything else but not the most amazing hypothesis of all.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Eventually you will get around to my way of thinking, you just have not got there yet.

Quote: Judge Judy"

"A quote is just a quote who ever may say it." cHriS, 8791


Hang on, doesn't Judy's quote apply to anyone's point of view?

[Hp]

Michael wrote: "You may say that's willful blindness, but an absolute devotion to the opposite view is just as blinkered and just as unimpressive. "

It's not "just as blinkered and just as unimpressive" - science expects evidence. Do you not understand what evidence means?

[Michael]

Hp (where ya been?) wrote: "Do you not understand what evidence means?"

I'm thinking you already know the answer to that, but ta for asking. Your allegiance to the investigative, heuristic approach hasn't failed you, patronising though the question sounded. I am not offended though, so eyes down and onward.

You're splitting hairs anyway. If you have faith in an evidentiary principle and a need for proof then you still have a faith, however gritty, oily or dusty it is - I think the word "faith" just sounds connotatively stinky to you because a lot of the time it sounds like a fudge or a fumble or something you could blow away in a stiff breeze. You can have faith in more than spiritual things. You can have faith in the reliability of ideas or even boring things like processes which are supposed to work but often don't. You know that - but you may not like that, it gets all up in the business of your absolute meaning.

You can't split hairs and be a poster-boy for the scientific view, irrespective of how fervent you are. As Tina Turner also said "We don't need another hero..." (It was either that or "the best" and what chance was there I was going to use that...?)

[Hp]

Michael wrote: "If you have faith in an evidentiary principle and a need for proof then you still have a faith, however gritty, oily or dusty it is ..."

Blimey! That was long winded way of saying I’d misinterpreted faith in a particular context. I am so used to people slinging it around here in its religious form I tripped over myself like a good ‘un.

Within this discussion faith (in its “belief without evidence” form) is the only justification given for religion. I was focusing on this “faith”. Faith in a completely different form applies to science: “complete trust or confidence in someone or something”. Now these two meanings are so distinct they are as good as two completely different words!

Religious faith is not the same as Scientific faith (as we are discussing religion and science here). You can not apply the same connotations of the two completely different interpretations of the word faith to both.

As Dawkins puts it: “Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.”

And Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

If you’re being pedantic let’s go with: http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...

Faith
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.


I have faith(1) in science.
I have faith(4) in science.
I do not have faith(2) in science.
I do not have faith(3) in science.
I do not have faith(5) in science.

You have to have faith that you’ve picked the right faith.

As Tina said "never in your wildest dreams, oh no, never in your wildest dreams could it ever be this easy, never in your wildest dreams, oh no"...

[Michael]

Hp wrote: "That was long winded way of saying I’d misinterpreted faith in a particular context."

C'mon, even you can see the irony in that one. I read your posts in installments.

No, I'm sticking with my very simple approach, as I don't distinguish between faith types, as I see it as a state of mind regardless. It comes with no frills. Oddly, I was just thinking after my last attempt that I could say I had faith in my local bus timetable. There is evidence for its reality (I've got a physical version of it about my person). But it regularly violates my trust (or my faith in it), but the weird thing is that I turn up at that melonfarming bus-stop at the same time every day. Who's the Goddamn fool? Well, nobody really. Is what it is. Tough crackers. Sucking it up on a daily basis. See what I mean about no frills.

We'll have to disagree on this one. And we will continue to do so. (The general point obviously, not the bus-stop thing).

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: A quote is just a quote who ever may say it." cHriS, 8791

Not 8791

Hang on, doesn't Judy's quote apply to anyone's point of view?
..."

No

[Travis]

Michael wrote: "I would say, whilst not being Christian enough to feel it in my deeper parts, that there is a tendency amongst some of the more literally-minded atheists on this thread to address the spiritual con..."

God Blockers...?
Really?
Can't we come up with a better name than that?
Sounds like a bad guy team from the Thor comic.

[Michael]

Travis wrote: "God Blockers...Sounds like a bad guy team from the Thor comic."

I honestly never thought of it like that, mainly because I know nothing about Thor comics etcetera. I'm even more pleased with myself now though, but I expect the feeling will wear off.

[Travis]

Michael wrote: "Travis wrote: "God Blockers...Sounds like a bad guy team from the Thor comic."

I honestly never thought of it like that, mainly because I know nothing about Thor comics etcetera. I'm even more pl..."

It just lacks pizazz.
At least when religious folk call atheists something else, it's at least something cool sounding like 'heretic'.

[Michael]

Accidental though it was, I think it sounds pizazzy enough ("pizazzy", Jeez, sounds like a delicately-placed tattoo)

And it makes me chuckle, which was pretty much the acid test. Things were getting slightly leaden around here.

[cerebus]

Dean wrote: "This is why chat forums on religion vs science are a bad idea. Small minds on both sides get aggresive."
And closed minds get upset when their misinformation is challenged.

[cerebus]

For those claiming science is like religion, here is another example of how this is not the case.....a well-established principle in science, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, yet it is still open to investigation, modification, and if necessary, rejection. Religion gives you an answer and expects you not to question it, and to ignore conflicting evidence.

[Hp]

Michael wrote: "as I don't distinguish between faith types"

I do. I think faith without evidence and faith with evidence are different.

I think that if proper evidence (of the repeatable, non anecdotal type) were found for religion then faith would no longer be invoked.

"We'll have to disagree on this one. And we will continue to do so. (The general point obviously, not the bus-stop thing). "

I'll go with you as far as Religion's faith is the same as Science's faith when we have no evidence. So the "science" of Astrology, ESP, Ghosts, Psychokinesis, Ufology, Graphology, Faith healing (that's appropriate!), Homeopathy, etc. etc. is indeed on a par with religion.

How's that?

The religions with (proper) evidence may be on an equal footing with evidentiary science but I can't find any (religions that is).

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: A quote is just a quote who ever may say it. cHriS, 8791"
Not 8791

True. It was 8719

"No"

Yes!

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: A quote is just a quote who ever may say it. cHriS, 8791"
Not 8791

True. It was 8719

"No"

Yes!"
8791
You must be reading another thread. 8791 was another point of view which I pasted to illustrated a point to Shanna.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: A quote is just a quote who ever may say it. cHriS, 8791"
Not 8791

True. It was 8719

"No"

Yes!"
8791
You must be reading another thread. 8791 was another point..."

You may need to reread that cHriS

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "You must be reading another thread. 8791 was another point of view which I pasted to illustrated a point to Shanna."

No. I said "True. It was 8719" meaning you were correct.

It wasn't 8791 it was 8719. I had a dyscalculic moment...

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: It wasn't 8791 it was 8719. .."

I do remember saying that 'a quote is just a quote' in response to your response to me saying.....

If you believe in something then it may well be true.

you wrote: A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.


But I was going much deeper when I said "If you believe in something then it may well be true".

I did not mean, if you believe a lie to be true that it would be true, hence the 'quote is a quote' reply.

Quotes are ok, sometime, just like proverbs. They can explain a lot in a few words: like, to many cooks etc. most folks know the rest.

The Judge Judy thing was a bit of fun with Travis, because he is always having a poke at religion.

Hp wrote: I had a dyscalculic moment.

I know what you mean, I get the equivalent with letters.

[Amara]

A life without religion, of course!

[Becky]

I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I am a believer in God myself, but I also believe that God enables us to make scientific advancements, and science has proved things in the Bible to be true. I think God made man with a curious mind so we could use science to learn about our world and how it works and also solve our own problems. I am not for forcing religion on anyone who is not interested. I do share my faith and then leave the person alone.

[Hazel]

name something that has been proven to be true from the bible that we didn't know to be true before the bible was written. People so often underestimate the level of knowledge pre monotheistic societies had.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "name something that has been proven to be true from the bible that we didn't know to be true before the bible was written. People so often underestimate the level of knowledge pre monotheistic soci..."

I wonder if Becky was referring to historic fact and archeological knowledge. I'm fairly certain some cities, tunnels, wars, etc... that are detailed in the Bible have, in more recent times, been proven through archaeology.

Now, we come to the caveat that gets attached from time to time. (Example, what good does religion have to offer ... answer ... charity ... follow up statement/question ... no, there are non-religious charities, find something that only religion does, etc..., etc....)

Did people know about those cities, tunnels, wars, etc...? I imagine the people of that area knew about them at the time. Did the Mohawk know? No. Did any of the peoples of Central or South America? No. Frankly, I doubt the Celts knew. You get where I'm going with this ....

[Sherrie]

cerebus wrote: "Dean wrote: "This is why chat forums on religion vs science are a bad idea. Small minds on both sides get aggresive."
And closed minds get upset when their misinformation is challenged."

I'm going to agree with you on this one! It's the same with a "discussion" about politics. We've all made up our minds. Nothing wrong with stating your decision - but all the arguing in favor or dissent never changes anyones mind.

[Maria]

Hazel wrote: "name something that has been proven to be true from the bible that we didn't know to be true before the bible was written. People so often underestimate the level of knowledge pre monotheistic soci..."

How about Isaiah 40:22 - "he sits enthroned above the circle of the earth."

Didn't everyone think the earth was flat until much later?

[Brad]

The book of Isaiah was written around 700 BC. There are records from around that time that speak about the earth being round.

[Maria]

Yes, but they thought it was being held up by a giant with both his hands. The Bible, in another scripture, can't remember where, says that the earth is "hanging upon nothing". Gravity? Isaac Newton wasn't born until much later.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "How about Isaiah 40:22 - "he sits enthroned above the circle of the earth."

Didn't everyone think the earth was flat until much later? "

Well, I just went to my new favorite "Ask an Astrophysicist" site through NASA. They directed me to ...

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/S...

... which claims it was first discovered to be round in 500 BC/BCE.

If this particular astrophysicist/astrophysics department is correct, Isaiah came first.

[Maria]

Hi Shannon! It's hard to say, but I think you're right!

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "The Bible, in another scripture, can't remember where, says that the earth is "hanging upon nothing". Gravity? Isaac Newton wasn't born until much later. "

Googled it ... Job 26:7.

[Ketil]

That's an easy question. Without science we would be left in the stone age. Everything in the modern society is based on science; houses, bridges, roads, cars, computers, cell phones, agri-culture ... the list is endless. Religion's only contribution to science is to slow down the development.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Hazel wrote: "name something that has been proven to be true from the bible that we didn't know to be true before the bible was written. People so often underestimate the level of knowledge pre mon..."

aren't circles flat as well?
If the bible had said sphere you might have had something.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Yes, but they thought it was being held up by a giant with both his hands. The Bible, in another scripture, can't remember where, says that the earth is "hanging upon nothing". Gravity? Isaac Ne..."

Or they might have looked up, noticed the moon and sun were hanging up in the sky and maybe earth was too.

Interesting, but nothing that wasn't figured out without the bible.

Since science has proven so much of the bible to be false or myth, is it really a good idea to make that the yardstick we judge religion by?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Since science has proven so much of the bible to be false or myth, is it really a good idea to make that the yardstick we judge religion by? "

Well, first, short of talking snakes, I'm not entirely sure the first part of that statement is correct.

Regarding the second part, ... I don't know that Maria is making the Bible the yardstick by which she judges religion? Maybe she is or maybe she's doing the same thing I'm doing.

Hazel asked a question. We responded.

PS...

... a flat circle suspended over nothing, huh ...

I don't know that some of the ancient peoples looked up and saw the moon and stars suspended above them in nothing. (Though, I must say, I credit the ancients with far more knowledge than most ... and am willing to believe they knew the world was round.) Having said that, I know some of the ancients believed a blanket was placed on the world at night, a blanket with holes. Enter the stars and moon.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Since science has proven so much of the bible to be false or myth, is it really a good idea to make that the yardstick we judge religion by? "

Well, first, short of talking snakes, ..."

well, there is surviving in the belly of a whale, turning into a pillar of salt, 500 year old men, dragons and the use of flaming shrubs as a reliable form of communication.

Well, she said, that science has proven the bible to be true and that was part of her belief.
Since a lot has been proven false, I just wondered what the bible's success ratio was.

PS
Was just pointing out that both bits of biblical science can be easily be reinterpreted.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "well, there is surviving in the belly of a whale, turning into a pillar of salt, 500 year old men, dragons and the use of flaming shrubs as a reliable form of communication."

You definitely have the belly of the whale thing. Of course, I was flipping through the TV the other night and saw a guy on The History Channel saying the "whale" might have been an underwater UFO. Yeah, he did....

Pillar of salt? Don't know. I do know people can be vaporized, right? Japan, 1945 ... the shadows of people who were eviscerated on the walls.

Dragons? No. See past discussions. The whole dragon thing is a stretch and then some. If we were to look at the Hebrew, the original text, we'd not see dragons.

Flaming/talking shrubs. Eh.... I was making supper one day and knew the guy I was seeing was going to be in a bad way in two shakes of a lamb's tail. I was looking at the chicken I was stuffing and knew he was at the JCPenney mall and was about to leave and would be at a certain light and that a car was going to run a red and hit him when he went on green. Just knew. I didn't see it exactly. I can't say that I heard a voice, exactly. But, I called him on his cell, told him I knew he was at that mall. Right..., I asked. He confirmed. I told him to wait when he got to a specific light. Wait. A car was going to run a red when his light turned to green. He needed to wait a second or two. Sure enough, it happened as I knew it would. Also ended that relationship, as it freaked him out and he asked me "what" I was and looked at me with a curled lip. Anyway, had I lived forever ago, I might have believed in a talking chicken, I suppose ... not wanting to offend believers with that statement, by the way.

Yeah, there are some far out things in the Bible, like the whale. However, you did say that science has proven "so much" of the Bible to be false or myth. My quibble is with percentage.

Regarding, "Well, she said, that science has proven the bible to be true and that was part of her belief. Since a lot has been proven false, I just wondered what the bible's success ratio was..."

Actually, I don't think Maria said that at all. Another woman, Becky, said, "science has proved things in the Bible to be true." At which point, Hazel asked for one thing from the Bible, not known by others at the time, that has been proven to be true. I discussed things from history, ah, history, and Maria mentioned the "circle" and "hanging" cites. Another poster mentioned "700 BC" and I felt there was a historical problem, timing, with that response. I looked it up and .... History, ah, history.

So ....

I don't think, though Maria needs to answer, that either of us, through our replies, were attempting to hold up the Bible as a yardstick.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "well, there is surviving in the belly of a whale, turning into a pillar of salt, 500 year old men, dragons and the use of flaming shrubs as a reliable form of communication."

You de..."

My quibble is also with percentage. We are just on different sides of the percentage idea.

but...
vaporized, can happen, pillar of salt, not.

I don't know how to respond to the underwater UFO and talking chicken thing.

If we going to convert the bible into a sci-fi novel, the UFO thing is pretty cool, but that then leads into a whole different debate...

and we haven't even gotten into the angels, devils, magic and deity parts.
mythology, ah, mythology.

I was just puzzled by people happily claiming 'the bible got so much right' as a part of faith, when the bible also 'got so much wrong' as well.
as a claim it struck me as odd, as we progress in science, the claims get fewer and it just seemed shaky as a bragging point, since even the things people are saying it got right were pretty vague.

a circle can be a sphere or it can be a pizza. Hanging in the sky from a book that tells us the world was formed in seven days, I don't see how it obviously means gravity.

[Maria]

Oh absolutely not, the bible is not a yardstick to measure anything - I was just trying to think of things I've read in the bible that might be scientific - like the circle thing. It is a history book after all, right?

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I was just puzzled by people happily claiming 'the bible got so much right' as a part of faith, when the bible also 'got so much wrong' as well."

Mmmm.... I don't know that "people" were happily claiming that, actually.

Regarding percentages and the Bible, to state that "so much" of it has been disproven by science, in my mind, means the overwhelming majority of it has been disproven. Is that really accurate?

For example, Passover is coming and I saw a program and have read that some of the "plagues" have been scientifically proven.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/sc...

Now, one could say science proved that the plagues discussed in the Book of Moses actually occurred. I'm sure others, namely non-believers, would say science proved "God" didn't create those plagues; they could happen and likely did happen as a result of natural phenomena. Either way, though, different plagues were discussed and there is scientific evidence for such plagues being possible and occurring.

Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in the Bible. Have scientists proven that he didn't exist? No....

Jericho...? Has it been proven that Jericho didn't exist? That Jericho's walls didn't fall? Hmmm....?

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/wor...

Actually, science proves the walls did fall. Debate can and should happen with regard to how those walls fell, but they did fall.

The flood...?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evid...

Does that mean that a man named Noah built a huge ark and sailed with a bunch of animals? Has that been proven? No. But, it seems more possible that a serious flood happened in that general area. Proven by science.

Did crucifixions happen within the Roman world and what is now Israel? Or, has science shown crucifixion to be a figment of people's imagination? Well, ... science proves crucifixions happened.

Did Peter exist? Were Christians persecuted? What does the historical evidence say? I know what it says .... Do others?

How much of the Bible has been proven and how much has been disproven? I don't have a clue. However, I don't think the overwhelming majority of it has been disproven.

Take a look at the following quote, dealing with the historical record,

"At first, archaeology seemed to refute the more radical critics' contention that the Bible was a rather late composition, and that much of it is unreliable historically. From the end of the nineteenth century, as the modern exploration of the lands of the Bible got underway, a series of spectacular discoveries and decades of steady archaeological excavation and interpretation suggested to many that the Bible's accounts were basically trustworthy in regard to the main outlines of the story of ancient Israel. Thus it seemed that even if the biblical text was set down in writing long after the events it describes, it must have been based on a substantial body of accurately preserved memories. This conclusion was based on several new classes of archaeological and historical evidence."

That is taken from ...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/...

People might be interested in reading that. In all honesty, it states that many things that are discussed in the Bible didn't happen. However, it also makes it very clear that many more events did happen and can be proven than many thought possible.

So, .... It's just not that simple. It's not as simple as saying most of the Bible has been proven by science to be bunk.

Regarding the "talking" chicken, I'm not overly surprised that you don't know what to say. After all, a lot of people don't think anyone can, somehow, "see" the future, have knowings. Let's face it, a lot of non-believers, especially, rather enjoy poking fun at people who claim such abilities. Those who don't simply don't think such things exist as they can't be proven scientifically. Then, you have the people, nonbelievers and believers alike, who are freaked out by such things, etc.... My mother said just three weeks ago that I would have been burned if I'd been born at another time. Yay, me!

As I've said before, given my experience with such things, I'm fully aware that life isn't as simple as people claim. Not as simple as some religious folk claim. Not as simple as some non-believers claim.

And, when it comes to history, people really, in my opinion, would do well to gain more knowledge on that front.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I was just puzzled by people happily claiming 'the bible got so much right' as a part of faith, when the bible also 'got so much wrong' as well."

Mmmm.... I don't know that "people..."


So, are we going to do a tally on what'a right and wrong...?

That's kind of my point...that claiming the bible got so much right is as pointless a game as 'religion started a bunch of wars'. People throw examples back and forth and it's not really conclusive.

Which is why I'm not a fan of people using the bible as a history or science textbook.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Oh absolutely not, the bible is not a yardstick to measure anything - I was just trying to think of things I've read in the bible that might be scientific - like the circle thing. It is a history b..."

Actually, no it's not a history book either.