The scientific community vs. the Bible.

[FarWanderer]

Theists and non-theists often accuse the other of having bias regarding what sources they believe legitimate. When this happens, genuine debate cannot continue without stepping back and addressing this issue.

So, let's do that: let's go deeper and justify why we put more trust in the sources of our own side than we put in the sources of the other guy.

What we have is a bunch of guys in lab coats who claim to have made all sorts of experimental observations (many of which we ourselves could never hope to personally verify), and ancient text that makes claims a variety of claims, many of which we also can never hope to personally verify.

So, when the general consensus of today's scientific community is in conflict with what appears to be said by scripture and/or a handful of dissenting scientists, to which side should we lend our credulity?

And why?

[Divine Insight]

It is actually the religious community who first had problems with science, not the other way around.

The scientific community in general couldn't give a hoot about the Bible. Science isn't out to discredit the Bible. It just happens that discoveries that science makes about the real world are often coincidentally in conflict with what the Bible claims to be truth.

You ask

So, when the general consensus of today's scientific community is in conflict with what appears to be said by scripture and/or a handful of dissenting scientists, to which side should we lend our credulity?

I personally don't even bother going there at all. There's no need to. The biblical scriptures are so obviously false based upon their own inconsistencies, contradictions, and immoral behavior of their own God character that no science is required to dismiss the Bible as being clearly not having anything to do with any supremely intelligent divine being.

Moreover, science does not officiate proclaim that there is no God or that there cannot be a spiritual or mystical essence to reality. It is true that there are many individual scientists who argue that there is not need for a God. And there are even individual scientists who will argue that in their opinion science leaves no room for a spiritual essence of humanity or a "soul".

However, those are personal opinions of scientists. No scientist has ever won a Nobel Prize for having discovered evidence that there cannot be a spiritual essence to reality. And there is no scientific theory stating that there cannot be a spiritual essence to reality. So science (and the official scientific community) does not proclaim that the world has been empirical determined to be non-spiritual.

So pitting Science against Religion really doesn't even make any sense.

The Bible can be dismissed based on it's own self-inconsistencies and absurdities.

No science is required to dismiss the Bible has having no merit.

[Clownboat]

Theists and non-theists often accuse the other of having bias regarding what sources they believe legitimate. When this happens, genuine debate cannot continue without stepping back and addressing this issue.

So, let's do that: let's go deeper and justify why we put more trust in the sources of our own side than we put in the sources of the other guy.

What we have is a bunch of guys in lab coats who claim to have made all sorts of experimental observations (many of which we ourselves could never hope to personally verify), and ancient text that makes claims a variety of claims, many of which we also can never hope to personally verify.

So, when the general consensus of today's scientific community is in conflict with what appears to be said by scripture and/or a handful of dissenting scientists, to which side should we lend our credulity?

And why?

Consider this.
Many people that have picked a religion to place their faith in have a lot to lose when they discover that evolution is true (the ones that can't except a god creating via evolution that is). For these people, if evolution is true, they lose out on going to a heaven when they die and they lose out on the idea of those that they hate will burn in fire for eternity. (Obviously some religious people have no issue with evolution, for those, this does not apply).

Now take someone that believes in evolution. What would they lose out on if we found a fossil out of place and evolution was proven to be false? Not a heaven, nor a hell.

So... who has a dog in this fight and where should you lend your credulity? The answer should be obvious IMO.

[H.sapiens]

Hmmm ... that's hard. What do you trust more, a system that is occasionally wrong but that is self-examining and self-correcting or a system that claims to be inerrant and is neither self-examining (in any serious sense) and is only rarely self-correcting in minor ways. Boy ... that's really a hard choice.

[lightbeamrider]

It is actually the religious community who first had problems with science, not the other way around.

How so?

The scientific community in general couldn't give a hoot about the Bible.

That is true, in general since they are generally biblical illiterates.

Science isn't out to discredit the Bible.

True. There are scientists who rely on their reputation to promote their atheism. A huge part of that process includes rants against the Bible and God depicted.

It just happens that discoveries that science makes about the real world are often coincidentally in conflict with what the Bible claims to be truth.

Math assumes truth claims and is not science. Science really does not make absolute truth claims. Macro evolution conflicts with the Bible and most of ancient human history. So it is not just the bible. For example, the Kings of Europe could trace their lineage back to Adam.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc ... e-Desc.htm

That means the ancients assumed Adam and Eve were historical. Now the moderns come along with their (unproven) assumptions the ancients, including the Kings of Europe, could not distinguish myth from actual history.

The biblical scriptures are so obviously false based upon their own inconsistencies, contradictions, and immoral behavior of their own God character that no science is required to dismiss the Bible as being clearly not having anything to do with any supremely intelligent divine being.

Moreover, science does not officiate proclaim that there is no God or that there cannot be a spiritual or mystical essence to reality. It is true that there are many individual scientists who argue that there is not need for a God. And there are even individual scientists who will argue that in their opinion science leaves no room for a spiritual essence of humanity or a "soul".

However, those are personal opinions of scientists. No scientist has ever won a Nobel Prize for having discovered evidence that there cannot be a spiritual essence to reality. And there is no scientific theory stating that there cannot be a spiritual essence to reality. So science (and the official scientific community) does not proclaim that the world has been empirical determined to be non-spiritual.

So pitting Science against Religion really doesn't even make any sense.

The Bible can be dismissed based on it's own self-inconsistencies and absurdities.

No science is required to dismiss the Bible has having no merit.

Speaking of inconsistencies and absurdities, i am wondering what is your objective reference point for assuming God depicted is somehow immoral? God depicted as the source of all life can and does take it away. The persons move on to the next stage. Not all that difficult to understand even in theory.

[Divine Insight]

The scientific community in general couldn't give a hoot about the Bible.

That is true, in general since they are generally biblical illiterates.

Actually studies have shown that secularists typically know more about what's in the Bible than religious people do.

Science isn't out to discredit the Bible.

True. There are scientists who rely on their reputation to promote their atheism. A huge part of that process includes rants against the Bible and God depicted.

Pointing out that the bible is both immoral and absurd is hardly a rant it's simply exposure of the truth.

Speaking of inconsistencies and absurdities, i am wondering what is your objective reference point for assuming God depicted is somehow immoral?

The Bible depicts a God that supports male-chauvinism, the oppression of women's rights. It is a God that not only supports slavery, but even supports the beating of slaves to within an inch of their life. As long as the slave isn't killed all is cool with this God.

The Bible depicts a God who uses the very act of procreation as a weapon of punishment.

The Bible depicts a God who's every method to try to solve problems on earth have been both extremely violent, and futile. Never have we seen this God actually employ a wise solution to anything or ever actually solve a problem.

This God cursed Satan to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days. Did that solve anything? Clearly not.

This God cursed Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth. Yet another violent evil curse. Did this violent curse solve anything? Apparently not.

This God so hated the world that he flooded out the bulk of humanity in an attempt to wipe out sin. Did this solve the problem of sin? Clearly not.

Later this God so loved the world that he desperately arranged to have his own corrupt priests brutally beat his only begotten son and nail him to a pole to die. Did this solve the problem of sin? Clearly not. In fact, Jesus himself has proclaimed the "GOOD NEWS" that only very few people will make it into the kingdom of God.

So yes this is all absurd and immoral, IMHO.

Also note that this God is not supposed to change in character, yet in the OT he deals with sin by drowning out the sinners. But in the NT he deals with sin by sacrificing his only son to save mankind.

I don't' think you could have a greater contradiction than this if you tried.

God depicted as the source of all life can and does take it away. The persons move on to the next stage. Not all that difficult to understand even in theory.

I have no problem with a God that takes away the life that he gave. That's not a problem at all.

All I have to say is that if there exists a truly righteous God then I have nothing to fear from that God.

If you suggest that I should fear the Biblical God in any way, then all you are doing is demanding that I should believe that the Biblical God is unrighteous. And that would be an oxymoron.

[lightbeamrider]

Actually studies have shown that secularists typically know more about what's in the Bible than religious people do.

Cite two examples of slave revolt in the Old Testament since secularists know more than religious people about the Bible. In my experience they are biblical illiterates, literalists, genre illiterates and generally hostile.

Pointing out that the bible is both immoral and absurd is hardly a rant it's simply exposure of the truth.

The Bible depicts a God that supports male-chauvinism, the oppression of women's rights. It is a God that not only supports slavery, but even supports the beating of slaves to within an inch of their life. As long as the slave isn't killed all is cool with this God.

All those things were common in the ancient world and in early America and in many parts of the world today. Corporal punishment does not mean to beat slaves to within an inch of their lives. Abuse of power is never ''cool with God'' Raising rent on the poor is reason for judgement according to Amos 5:11. You are being selective in your facts. All one has to do is read through the prophets to see the reason for judgements. A lot had to do with abuse of power and consequences.

The Bible depicts a God who uses the very act of procreation as a weapon of punishment.

????

The Bible depicts a God who's every method to try to solve problems on earth have been both extremely violent, and futile. Never have we seen this God actually employ a wise solution to anything or ever actually solve a problem.

This God cursed Satan to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days. Did that solve anything? Clearly not.

This God cursed Eve with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth. Yet another violent evil curse. Did this violent curse solve anything? Apparently not.

This God so hated the world that he flooded out the bulk of humanity in an attempt to wipe out sin. Did this solve the problem of sin? Clearly not.

Later this God so loved the world that he desperately arranged to have his own corrupt priests brutally beat his only begotten son and nail him to a pole to die. Did this solve the problem of sin? Clearly not. In fact, Jesus himself has proclaimed the "GOOD NEWS" that only very few people will make it into the kingdom of God.
So yes this is all absurd and immoral, IMHO.
Also note that this God is not supposed to change in character, yet in the OT he deals with sin by drowning out the sinners. But in the NT he deals with sin by sacrificing his only son to save mankind.
I don't' think you could have a greater contradiction than this if you tried.
All I have to say is that if there exists a truly righteous God then I have nothing to fear from that God.
If you suggest that I should fear the Biblical God in any way, then all you are doing is demanding that I should believe that the Biblical God is unrighteous. And that would be an oxymoron.

LOL. I am not demanding, am debating so relax. It is you who rants against a God you do not believe exists! I don't believe the wicked witch of the west exists and i do not rant against her nor do i care. All your rants assume moral absolutes and you do not cite your objective reference point for any of them. For example, slavery. This assumes slavery is always wrong at all times in all places. Based on what?

[ttruscott]

...

Pointing out that the bible is both immoral and absurd is hardly a rant it's simply exposure of the truth.

...

True, IF, that truth is actually exposed, that is, proven and not just claimed. And as long as a contrary opinion of the truth is brought forth, the rant cannot be considered to be proved. Rants are designed to overwhelm contrary opinions as to what the truth is or if there is uncertainty of proof, to overwhelm the opposition as to their conviction.

A rant is an emotionally driven harangue of opinion which is chastised as preaching in Christians and ignored in anti-Christians.



Peace, Ted

[Divine Insight]

LOL. I am not demanding, am debating so relax.

Ok so you're debating that I should believe in an unrighteous God. No problem. I simply reject your debate claims.

It is you who rants against a God you do not believe exists!

If you think that's what I'm doing then you have misunderstood my position. I point out the ignorance and immorality of a religious dogma that claims to speak for a God that I most certainly do not believe exists. I also question why anyone would support that a supposedly benevolent God would support those immoral things.

Clearly the negative and oppressive dogmas that preach immorality in the name of a God do exist. I reject those dogmas as being obviously immoral to the standard that most civilized humans would agree with today.

Do you realize that in the USA there was recently a botched execution of a convicted murderer by lethal injection. It took him a couple hours to die. Many people were outraged by this proclaiming that it was terrible to have made this man potentially suffer for a few hours.

Compare this with the morality the Bible teaches that God makes criminals suffer for all of eternity with no hope of parole.

I think it's pretty clear that people today are no as barbaric as the men who wrote the Bible. And there's certainly no reason to believe that a God would be such a sadist either.

I don't believe the wicked witch of the west exists and i do not rant against her nor do i care.

Why would you? Has anyone ever told you that you are an immoral person if you refuse to believe in the wicked witch of the west? Is there any dogma that makes this accusation against you?

If not, then why would you care about the wicked witch of the west?

The Abrahamic religions, and Christianity and Islam in particular have made horrible nasty accusations toward everyone proclaiming that they speak for a jealous male-chauvinistic God who is the creator of the universe.

The fact that these people take themselves so seriously requires that these myths be exposed for the immoral myths that they are.

All your rants assume moral absolutes and you do not cite your objective reference point for any of them. For example, slavery. This assumes slavery is always wrong at all times in all places. Based on what?

I make no claim of any absolute morality. If you want to argue that in your subjective opinion enslaving people is ethical or moral please by my guest.

I argue that it is my subjective position that such behavior is disgusting and unethical. And that's all I need to argue for.

If you support the ideal that slavery is "absolutely moral" that's your subjective opinion, not mine. Moreover, if you got that idea from the Abrahamic mythologies then I'll accept that as further support for my position that the Abrahamic mythology are indeed immoral IMHO. (i.e. Immoral with respect to my personal subjective feelings of what should be moral or immoral).

I'll put my personal subjective morality up against the Biblical fables of God any day.

And given those two moralities to chose from I chose mine over those attributed to the mythical biblical God.

You are free to chose otherwise if you wish. I you want to endorse slavery as being moral be my guest.

[Divine Insight]

True, IF, that truth is actually exposed, that is, proven and not just claimed. And as long as a contrary opinion of the truth is brought forth, the rant cannot be considered to be proved. Rants are designed to overwhelm contrary opinions as to what the truth is or if there is uncertainty of proof, to overwhelm the opposition as to their conviction.

A rant is an emotionally driven harangue of opinion which is chastised as preaching in Christians and ignored in anti-Christians.



Peace, Ted

It seems to me that all you are really saying is that when a person offers solid reasons why the Bible is clearly false Christians call this a "rant".

But if they argue for reasons why they think the Bible is the word of God, they aren't "ranting".

The Bible is a highly accusatory dogma:

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:18 sounds like a religious rant to me. It's basically demanding that everyone who doesn't believe in this dogma is condemned already.

Whatever happened to the concept of morality? Now all-of-a-sudden people are being condemned for merely not believing that Jesus is the demigod son of God. Morality is toss out the window. Who cares about morality? Reject our demigod and you're condemned. Period.

It is precisely because of these kinds of absurdities that I reject this dogma.

Christianity is a train-wrecked religion. It started out being about morality and ended up having you automatically condemned if you don't worship and idolize a very specific demigod. It's gone from being about morality to being all about the worshiping of Jesus as an Idol.