What would it take for you?

[nobspeople]

Recently started watching a Netflix documentary about Mormonism and how (at least up to this point) the church seemed to be going to any and all means to stop documentation from getting out that, they think, would totally uproot their belief system (though I haven't finished it yet).

So, what would it take, for you, to disavow your religion and religious belief?
Documentation from writers of that time period?
Documentation from current high up leaders?
Testimony of how it's a farce from those who spent the majority of their lives in it, finally seeing their own light?
Science?
Data?
Another, more believable religion?


For those of us who are in the 'been-there-done-that-bought-the-t-shirt' crowd, what was it that caused you to change?

[benchwarmer]

Wrong again. You claim #3 (it existed forever) hasn't been postulated by you, yet you postulate "the current universe may have arisen from an ever existing energy.

I am trying to figure out how an "ever existing energy" isn't the same as "it (the universe) existed forever" (#3).

Either way, something has existed forever...so #3 has been postulated by you after all.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between components of something and the actual something. Are humans made from atoms? Do the atoms disappear when the human does?

I tell you what I actually said, then you ignore that and continue to claim I said something else. Not sure what the point of that is other than not wanting to actually make any progress.

Attempting to say your favorite god concept can always exist but something else can't is special pleading 101.

It isn't special pleading if I have actual REASONS why X can do it and Y can't. At that point, it is what it is.

Well now is the time to plop those special reasons on the table. Unless you are going to redefine logic, I can't imagine what these reasons are.

We are then left with the 'correct' answer at this point which is "we don't know".

Not at all. You see, there is the "we know" crowd...and the "we don't want to know" crowd.

It is clear which side you are on.

Now you are skating on thin ice and making stuff up. Even your sentence makes no sense. You seem adept at making partial lists of options and ignoring the ones that your interlocuter has already stated they are using.

If you want to insert "we don't want to know" we have:

1) We don't know
2) We don't want to know (which is actually just 1 with the added component of willful ignorance)
3) We want to know (which is also 1 with the added component of desiring knowledge)
4) We know.

Technically I'm in camp (3) regardless of your insult above which you seemed to have pulled out of thin air based on your own desire to 'win' the argument.

[Difflugia]

If your use of ellipse is any indication, you seem upset.

That's an odd, tone-trolling non sequitur. Why would ellipses indicate being upset any more than, say, the use of various text colors or embedding overlarge images would?

Neither I nor Mr. Morris made and reference to data in the bible. Perhaps you may benefit from a careful reread.

That seems a strange hill to stand on. If you weren't intending to reference "data in the Bible," then with what exactly are you and Morris claiming that the science conflicts?

[JehovahsWitness]

If you weren't intending to reference "data in the Bible," then with what exactly are you and Morris claiming that the science conflicts?

I cannot speak for Mr Morris (who from what I can see referenced only to scientific "data"). If I had wanted to reference "data in the bible" I would probably had said "data in the bible". As it is I said the following. ...

Science? Data?

In my opinion, good (accurate/proven) science always agrees with scripture.

By "scripture" I mean the written information found in the 66 books of the bible canon.




JW

[Difflugia]

I cannot speak for Mr Morris (who from what I can see referenced scientific "data"). If I had wanted to reference "data in the bible" I would probably had said "data in the bible". As it is I said the following. ...

Then with what exactly are you claiming the science conflicts?

[JehovahsWitness]

Then with what exactly are you claiming the science conflicts?

I don't believe I made any claim of conflict, quite the contrary my only statement in that post was of harmony.

In my opinion, good (accurate/proven) science always agrees with scripture.

JW

[Tcg]

Then with what exactly are you claiming the science conflicts?

I don't believe I made any claim of conflict, quite the contrary my only statement in that post was of harmony.

In my opinion, good (accurate/proven) science always agrees with scripture.

JW

Previously it appeared that your disagreement was with the term, "data in the Bible." You've now dropped that and are claiming your disagreement is that you were suggesting harmony rather than conflict. Fair enough. Of course that which you claim is in harmony with data in the Bible is a limited brand of science; "good (accurate/proven) science." How do you determine what is "good (accurate/proven) science?"


Tcg

[Difflugia]

I don't believe I made any claim of conflict, quite the contrary my only statement in that post was of harmony.

So, you weren't intending to express agreement with Henry Morris' claim that "when science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data?" Or are you reading "when" as "if" and taking that to somehow mean that Henry Morris doesn't think that science as it's practiced differs with the Bible in reality, despite everything that Henry Morris has actually written on the subject?

Or are you, as I suspect, splitting finer and finer hairs just to be contrary, to the point of contradicting the plain meaning of what you already wrote?

[JehovahsWitness]

So, you weren't intending to express agreement with Henry Morris' claim that "when science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data?"

I wrote exactly what I intended to express.

I wrote nothing on my agreement or disagreement with Mr Morris. Had I intended to do so, I would have done so. My words are there in black and white. If you have any difficulty with any of them may I suggest a good dictionary.

In my opinion, good (accurate/proven) science always agrees with scripture.

By "scripture" I mean the written information found in the 66 books of the bible canon.

Enjoy,


JW

[Difflugia]

I wrote nothing on my agreement or disagreement with Mr Morris.

Why, then, did you choose an image with that quote? Were the actual words merely incidental to your real reason, whatever it was? Was it because you liked the font, perhaps?

My words are there in black and white.

And sometimes blue.

If you have any difficulty with any of them may I suggest a good dictionary.

No, thanks. The dictionaries you choose tend to be incomplete.

[nobspeople]

In my opinion, good (accurate/proven) science always agrees with scripture.

By "scripture" I mean the written information found in the 66 books of the bible canon.

Enjoy,

JW
[/quote]

Can you provide examples of science agreeing with scripture?
And if so, do can you also provide the scientific counterpoint (where science disagrees with scripture) and why you choose to ignore it?
What about the scriptural entries that have no scientific explanation (the talking and burning yet not consuming bush, for example)? How is this explained?

Simply curious as I've never heard anyone make such a claim as yours.