What if...

[Willum]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against creationism, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about religious conspiracies.
In fact it has now become common place for people to mis-represent history itself on Wikipedia and other mediums.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing to show religion is manufactured and fossils are real?

For example
Remember the St John hoax - the one that was said Saint John's bones were in two different churches?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all, but that the two skeletons were from when St John was an old man, and the other was from when he was a young man.

That is quite interesting.

The skeletons aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of the Bibles picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?
Quote:

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are Noah stuffing two animals of every kind into an Ark 50 sizes too small, and Jesus petting tyrannosaurs.
[Noah]

[Jesus]

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that stories can be faked, we must accept the fact that whatever rich literate who wrote the Bible in Greek, and other religions could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather; Does this not place religionists in the same position as the scientists they claim are believing in theories?

Consider:
Scientists accept the facts, as what is repeatably demonstrated.
Here are just a few facts about the Science.
It is an iterative process, where the truth if it contradicts theory, trumps the theory.
It has unestimated annual sales of 100 trillions copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, except during the Dark Ages (nuff said).

Archaeological findings of science before the Bible was far more advanced than Christendom after the Dark Ages, and had already lain down the the Theory of Evolution!

The evidence is there however, that the modern science was information religionists willfully destroyed because it conflicted religious doctrine.

Religionists call the theories fables - as if by being a theory, that makes it much less respectable than the religious model that only has one non-verifiable source as its reference.
Maybe one of the reasons that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - is because it is impossible.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the model of Judeo-Christianity, where all they have to go by, is what religionists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the miracles.
Any data they give you on miracles, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed rainbows over Arks and dinosaurs, which could have been edited.

So Judeo-Christians are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing in science?

And what if the folks who penned the Bible, who did not leave their names or citations, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.

[SkyChief]

So Judeo-Christians are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing in science?

This is quite different than believing in science. Science is a practical, systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is the foundation for making hypotheses and theories about the physical universe.

Judeo-Christian mythology is a collection of stories and parables. Its function is spiritual and cannot aid in our understanding of the physical universe. Its designed to make us feel good about ourselves when we do bad things.

Judeo-Christian mythology begins with all the answers. It can never be revised. (Though many have tried in vain)

Science begins with questions, then strives to find the answers. It is constantly revised and updated as new data becomes available.

These could not be any more different, imo.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by SkyChief]

Ah, well, my point was if I reverse religionist arguments, you are left with a joke. All I did was apply "the Student"'s arguments in reverse.

The argument "ad absurdum," and is very effective, no real counters, bye creationism.

[SkyChief]

[Replying to post 3 by Willum]

Yes, the reductio ad absurdum argument ploy is overused and over-rated. Special pleading and shifting the burden-of-proof are other tactics frequently used to validate claims by believers that belief in gods is somehow scientific.

Just the act of attempting to make the argument is an indication of clinical delusion. This is why I would never attempt to engage in a debate with a believer. The delusional person instinctively rationalizes that if someone is unable to disprove a claim, the claim must therefore be valid. Logic and reason fly out the window, and usually the discussion devolves into a reductio ad absurum.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Both you and I probably either consciously or subconsciously use critical thinking to make decisions and guide the actions in our everyday lives. To a lot of folks, this is second nature. To others, however, critical thinking is a dark, elusive thing which is to be feared and shunned.

Some think the term critical means you have to be critical of someone's belief in gods. Which, of course is NOT what the term means. In the context of critical thinking, it means of the utmost importance; paramount.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 3 by Willum]

Yes, the reductio ad absurdum argument ploy is overused and over-rated. Special pleading and shifting the burden-of-proof are other tactics frequently used to validate claims by believers that belief in gods is somehow scientific.

Just the act of attempting to make the argument is an indication of clinical delusion. This is why I would never attempt to engage in a debate with a believer. The delusional person instinctively rationalizes that if someone is unable to disprove a claim, the claim must therefore be valid. Logic and reason fly out the window, and usually the discussion devolves into a reductio ad absurum.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Both you and I probably either consciously or subconsciously use critical thinking to make decisions and guide the actions in our everyday lives. To a lot of folks, this is second nature. To others, however, critical thinking is a dark, elusive thing which is to be feared and shunned.

Some think the term critical means you have to be critical of someone's belief in gods. Which, of course is NOT what the term means. In the context of critical thinking, it means of the utmost importance; paramount.

You are correct. This conversation is absurd at the start. A "god" can not be scientific since the very thing that makes it a "god" and differentiates from a "mortal" is supernaturality, and that is not scientific. End of story.

[Willum]

[Replying to H.sapiens]

Yeah, it is funny how rapidly we can arrive at a conclusion when the truth is demonstrated. No one argues gravity or sunlight.

But

What If...?
What if they have lied about evolution theory...

lasted 54 pages.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 6 by Willum]

[Replying to H.sapiens]

Yeah, it is funny how rapidly we can arrive at a conclusion when the truth is demonstrated. No one argues gravity or sunlight.

But

What If...?
What if they have lied about evolution theory...

lasted 54 pages.

I heard that the Discovery Institute is now distancing itself from Intelligent Design, preferring to focus on "Teach the controversy"...as if there WAS a controversy. They focus on spurious criticisms of NOT ONLY evolution now, but also CLIMATE CHANGE, the cloning of HUMANS ... as if that was a real issue, and the origins of life.

We should watch out for those.

None of these criticisms have any scientific merit, but that doesn't stop people from trying to wedge those religious beliefs into the hapless kid's heads stuck in their publicly funded classrooms.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

What if...
They lied to you about the creationist model

What if, heck...

"Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," [Presiding Judge] Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony."

(small edits for clarity, flow)

Granted, it might not be the "creationist model", but it would set forth an argument for the "creationist who'd lie to set forth the model 'cause it ain't science, only they wanna trick ya into thinkin' that's what it is".

[Bust Nak]

Yeah, it is funny how rapidly we can arrive at a conclusion when the truth is demonstrated. No one argues gravity or sunlight.

Oh, you'd be surprise. I've been visiting flat Earther discussion boards and youtube channels, we DO argue gravity and sunlight.

EDIT: Oh look, we are arguing gravity right now in this very forum!

[Willum]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Well, I have heard there is no gravity, but it is just that the Earth sucks.