What's wrong with science as religion

Salon.com ^ | 31 Jul 08 | Karl Giberson

[Soliton]

As an atheist

Try again. I'm not an atheist.

[Soliton]

You might want to ping some of the other atheist types to this thread. They love to attack in packs

I am not an atheist and you offer nothing but empty words.

[MrB]

Your insistence that the Bible is “mythology” shows that you are incapable of reason, as you do not have sufficient knowledge of that which you are criticizing.

Come back when you “investigate, study, learn”, then we’ll listen to the “opinion” that you offer.

“I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that report supernatural events which took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies and claim to be divine rather than human in origin.”

[Skooz]

Wow. I’m convinced.

The way you explained post 57 was impressive, too.

All those facts. All that logic.

[Soliton]

There is as much evidence for Krishna (have I not drunk the soma?) and Zeus. Read the Bhagavad Gita, The Vedas, The Ramayana. I have.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> No. Your wishful thinking isn’t truth. Your God is a grownup Santa Claus.

That’s the best you’ve got? No logical empirical argument? No scientific conclusion? Just a poorly contrived insult? Pathetic.

I declared outright that there are many “truths” which are necessarily outside the reach of the scientific method ... including the existence or non-existence of God (among other things). Certainly that God either exists, or doesn’t, is a “truth”. Certainly what existed before time is a “truth”. Certainly the circumstances under which life was created constitutes a “truth”.

That these “truths” are entirely out of the reach of the scientific method is entirely indisputable. There is simply no way the scientific method can even speak to these truths one way or the other.

And the best retort your infinitely-capable mind can come up with is “Santa Claus”? Very clever.

H

[Soliton]

Your insistence that the Bible is “mythology” shows that you are incapable of reason, as you do not have sufficient knowledge of that which you are criticizing.

I have concordances and commentaries and several different Bibles here. I have studied and I have learned the Bible. If you want to argue scripture with the St. Rose Baptist VBS Bible sword contest champion, go ahead.

[Soliton]

Provide some empirical evidence that your God is more real than Woden.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Try again. I’m not an atheist.

Honestly, I couldn’t care less. Care to respond to the rest of the post?

H

[Soliton]

That these “truths” are entirely out of the reach of the scientific method is entirely indisputable. There is simply no way the scientific method can even speak to these truths one way or the other.

Not truth, just wishful thinking.

[AreaMan]

The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord’s existence is that of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews, the historian twice referred to Jesus. In one passage he called Jesus “the Christ,” referred to His “marvelous deeds,” and alluded to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30). In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (20.9.1).

There is more but Mr. B's earlier point is a good one. Why "apart from the bible?"

That's like saying "apart from the pre-constitutional writings of the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independance or Constitution" what evidence do you have for the American Republic?

[Soliton]

Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). Nice try. I have josepus on my desk. he died after Jesus was supposed to have died. IE not contemporary.

[Skooz]

When I was 18, I loved Joni.

When I was 21, I love Donna.

I think I loved Joni more than I loved Donna.

Those are true facts.

Is there any way I can prove empirically that I loved Joni more than I loved Donna? Is there a way to measure that love and the distance between the extent of both loves that is verifiable?

[Soliton]

That's like saying "apart from the pre-constitutional writings of the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independance or Constitution" what evidence do you have for the American Republic?

No. Herrod is mentioned in external works as is Pilate. No Roman records mention Jesus.

[Soliton]

Is there any way I can prove empirically that I loved Joni more than I loved Donna? Is there a way to measure that love and the distance between the extent of both loves that is verifiable?

Sure there is

[Skooz]

Sure there is

Care to share it?

[Soliton]

I mean he was born after Jesus died

[Soliton]

Science begins with definitions. What do you mean by love more? If you define it, we can test for it.

[Radix]

What's wrong with science as religion

The main difference between Science and Religion, is that Science does not deal with "TRUTH".

Ask any Scientist.

[Skooz]

OK.

I mean the one I had the most love for.

I mean I had greater love for one than the other.

How can that be tested?