Re: (OT) Giving up on science [Was: Giving Up on Leopard]

In article <sdfkj-7F89C1.11105508012008@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
MNP <sdfkj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <timmcn-A4DDBD.15003906012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <sdfkj-9B1463.13033506012008@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
MNP <sdfkj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <timmcn-BE8C17.10320705012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <ENNfj.24955$8Z1.17966@trnddc05>,
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
To call pi = 3 is in fact only a 3% error. And when
measuring with a stretchy material like string I would
have thought that wasn't bad.
To criticise the Bible for not taking the length of a
forewarm to three decimal places is really grasping at
straws.

And your point is? I'm pointing out that the fools are
those who claim that the Bible says that pi = 3, based on a
couple of rough measurements.

Point is, I agree with you, except that I am a bit more
reluctant to use the word "fool"

"Fool" seems to be an appropriate term for anyone who
voluntarily relinquishes their ability for reasoning and
critical analysis in order to believe that every word of
scripture (no matter what faith) is literally true. That
especially applies to Genesis and Revelations.

Interestingly enough, the Christians I know who live the most
Christian lives have *not* fallen into this trap.
Fundamentalism- which usually seems to emphasize Old Testament
stuff- seems to promote an antagonistic stance towards others
and often leads to beliefs that are in opposition to the
teachings of Jesus. It's very odd.

There are several intriguing questions in the 38th chapter of
Job. One presenting a gigantic challenge to the unbeliever. It is
in Job 38:32 and reads, "Canst thou guide Arcturus in his
flight?" Now all the early astronomers claimed this star was
stationary and, before the world had sophisticated instruments,
it must have seemed strange to them at this time for God to ask
Job could he guide it if it were not moving. No doubt this
Scripture had been held up to ridicule by many, before the advent
of superior telescopes and tracking devices, who had claimed it
was a fixed star.

From a human scale perspective the stars are fixed. We cannot
perceive their relative motion, the exceptions being planets and
the moon which do show motion against the rest of the sky.

Perhaps you missed the point. How did Job know that these stars were
in motion? How did Job know that Arcturus was one of the fastest
moving stars in the galaxy?

There is no indication that he did.

As a result your question is meaningless and there is no challenge
whatsoever to an "unbeliever" in this. The universe operates
without need for a god.

Right. OK - make something and have it operate for thousands of
years without your intervention. It goes against basic logic.
Designs have designers.

Billions of years, not thousands. Don't fall for Ussher's specious
mathematics. The world was not created on the evening before October
23, 4004 BC nor 9:00 AM Tuesday October 3 4004 (Lightfoot), 3952 BC
(Bede) or 3949 BC (Scaliger). Good grief, if the Bible was that
reliable you'd think that those calculations would all agree. I mean,
really, if God can inspire all those sevens He certainly could inspire
accuracy in determining the date of His Creation. Of course, Peter did
imply that each of the first seven days was 1000 years long. There is
also a translational problem- the Greek texts on which the KJV was based
has significant temporal discrepancies with the Hebrew texts used by
Ussher.

Show me a design (not of nature) that has no designer.

We're not talking about designs "not of nature." We're talking about
the universe.

The significance these passage hold are only to those desperate to
"prove" the legitimacy of their faith.

Somebody that refuses to believe will continue in his/her unbelief no
matter what evidence is presented.

You've presented no evidence. That's the problem with religious faith:
it persists despite the lack of evidence. And so it must because if
religion was based on evidence, then it would be science.

I think the greater challenge is to believers, as neatly summarized
by Mark Twain: "faith is believing what you know ain't so." Every
religion requires the conviction that it is the true religion and
all the others are wrong, but every religion- with the arguable
exception of Buddhism- has exactly the same amount of verifiable
proof of accuracy. So which do you pick? Most people just stick
with the one that their parents held.

Thinkers look at the evidence.

And I am still waiting to see some. And in the meantime, I support your
right to believe whatever you wish even though I disagree with you.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science versus religion fnord
    ... i just told you i dont use faith. ... evidence free and not susceptible to evidence. ... When ever you use the phrase "religion does X", ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... already said that he spent many years studying religion and has not ... found any evidence in support of any deity or belief system. ... are faith based just as believers are faith based. ... Judson, you haven't spent time around atheists, you haven't read any ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary
    ... that it is not merely religion being segregated, ... aspect) - faith - is deliberately 'non-thinking' in the sense that by ... 'evidence' suggests that humans have worth and dignity, ... breakthroughs were done with 'God' as a significant backdrop. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary
    ... that it is not merely religion being segregated, ... aspect) - faith - is deliberately 'non-thinking' in the sense that by ... 'evidence' suggests that humans have worth and dignity, ... breakthroughs were done with 'God' as a significant backdrop. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: on dorkins and bigotry...
    ... >>> Religion, as I've encountered it, is about having faith. ... >>> Saying I will believe when god shows up on my doorstep is not true faith. ... it is a belief that is at least to some small extent evidence based, ... is no essential difference between that and the beliefs of the so ...
    (uk.politics.misc)