Theists, If religion wasn't involved . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
Theists, If religion wasn't involved, what parts of science (if any) would you contest or dispute and why?

[benchwarmer]

…When have you observed in real life, the reanimation of dead bodies?

If you haven't, then what you have reveled here is your double standard. An easy one for Bible folklore, nothing more than the Bible says so, and a much more strict one for scientific theories, you expect to observe evidence…

The difference is, I trust to the Bible, I don’t trust to people or scientists, they have been wrong so many times. Bible has never been wrong.

So you don't trust people, yet people (at the very least) wrote what is contained in the Bible. If you don't trust people, how can you trust them to have correctly written down what should have been written down? Did the Bible fall from the sky directly from your God?

And which Bible? You claim "Bible has never been wrong". Which one? There are many versions with different contents. This fact alone destroys your assertion, never mind the contradictions easily discovered in any version I've read.

This is special pleading plain and simple. You don't trust people, but you trust the people that wrote one of the versions of the Bible.

[Tcg]

…When have you observed in real life, the reanimation of dead bodies?

If you haven't, then what you have reveled here is your double standard. An easy one for Bible folklore, nothing more than the Bible says so, and a much more strict one for scientific theories, you expect to observe evidence…

The difference is, I trust to the Bible, I don’t trust to people or scientists, they have been wrong so many times. Bible has never been wrong.

As is so often the case, you've side stepped the issue rather than addressing it directly. In an attempt to navigate you back to the discussion, I'll repeat this question:

• "When have you observed in real life, the reanimation of dead bodies?"

Please answer it directly rather than ignoring it as you did in your previous reply. If you are willing to do so, we can get back on track to the actual discussion.


Tcg

[1213]

So you don't trust people, yet people (at the very least) wrote what is contained in the Bible. If you don't trust people, how can you trust them to have correctly written down what should have been written down? Did the Bible fall from the sky directly from your God?

I believe Bible is written by men, in guidance of God. And I believe and trust to the Bible, because there seems to be no mistakes. If it would be purely by humans, it would be full of mistakes and atheists could easily show it.

And which Bible? You claim "Bible has never been wrong". Which one?

I don’t think there is not meaningful difference in the translations. But I think some translations are clearer.

[1213]

…"When have you observed in real life, the reanimation of dead bodies?"

Never. Dead minds seem to be more common.

[Tcg]

…"When have you observed in real life, the reanimation of dead bodies?"

Never. Dead minds seem to be more common.

Please try to stay on subject for a change. We are talking about dead bodies. Your claim from post 7 states this:

• "Bible has shown to be trustworthy to me, therefore I have not problems with its claims."

Thus, based on your own admission, you have never seen a dead body reanimate and therefore the Bible has not been shown trustworthy according to your standards.

You've never observed in real life the reanimation of a dead body, but you accept it anyway. You have to lower your standards to accept what the Bible claims. You of course aren't alone in this, all who accept the reanimation of dead bodies must do so.


Tcg

[Diagoras]

I don’t dispute much science now, so I don’t imagine that removing religion would change much in that area.

I remember once going to a museum where someone had found a single prehistoric shark-like tooth, and a detailed model of a large animal had been created just from that. I thought that kind of “science� was built more on imagination than observation. I would like to see a bit more humility, a bit more evidence and a bit less hypothesis being treated as fact, in scientific study. I don’t think that would change if I were not religious. However faith changes everything, so who knows?

The shark tooth example you give doesn’t particularly support the position of disputing science, as the context in which you experienced it was more about education, and stimulating people’s imagination. A museum with simply a single tooth and no other information about it would be seen as boring by most people.

It’s probable that an expert on marine paleobiology could infer some likely properties of a prehistoric shark based on a single tooth, though.

[benchwarmer]

So you don't trust people, yet people (at the very least) wrote what is contained in the Bible. If you don't trust people, how can you trust them to have correctly written down what should have been written down? Did the Bible fall from the sky directly from your God?

I believe Bible is written by men, in guidance of God. And I believe and trust to the Bible, because there seems to be no mistakes.

So how do you know scientists aren't 'guided by God' when doing science? You continue to engage in special pleading.

If it would be purely by humans, it would be full of mistakes and atheists could easily show it.

Atheists and others do continually show it. You choose to ignore all the mistakes and pretend there are none based on nothing more than belief a god guided the writing.

Simple example that is brought up all the time: the Genesis account. There are 2 which are self contradictory and neither matches what we have learned through science.

And which Bible? You claim "Bible has never been wrong". Which one?

I don’t think there is not meaningful difference in the translations. But I think some translations are clearer.

I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking about Bibles with different numbers of books in them. Are you seriously not aware of these?

[1213]

…
Thus, based on your own admission, you have never seen a dead body reanimate and therefore the Bible has not been shown trustworthy according to your standards.

You've never observed in real life the reanimation of a dead body, but you accept it anyway. You have to lower your standards to accept what the Bible claims. ..

I have not. The standard was not about have I seen everything. It is about how trustworthy I think the source is. Bible is for me trustworthy, because Bible doesn’t seem to have any mistakes. People are not trustworthy, because I have seen so many mistakes by people.

[1213]

….Atheists and others do continually show it. You choose to ignore all the mistakes and pretend there are none based on nothing more than belief a god guided the writing.

Atheists have failed to show even one mistake in the Bible. But they have managed to show mistakes in their own reasoning.

Simple example that is brought up all the time: the Genesis account. There are 2 which are self contradictory and neither matches what we have learned through science.

What do you mean with two Genesis accounts? Bible doesn’t have any contradiction, if one is literal.

I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking about Bibles with different numbers of books in them. Are you seriously not aware of these?

Bible is actually collection of books. If some version doesn’t have all the books, it is not necessary a mistake. It is not a problem, if all the books are not included in all versions.

[benchwarmer]

….Atheists and others do continually show it. You choose to ignore all the mistakes and pretend there are none based on nothing more than belief a god guided the writing.

Atheists have failed to show even one mistake in the Bible. But they have managed to show mistakes in their own reasoning.

This very website is proof that atheists continually bring up mistakes. The only way around most of the reasoning is tortured reinterpretation which I'm sure we are about to witness on the very next point.

Simple example that is brought up all the time: the Genesis account. There are 2 which are self contradictory and neither matches what we have learned through science.

What do you mean with two Genesis accounts? Bible doesn’t have any contradiction, if one is literal.

Sorry, the two CREATION accounts in Genesis.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

[snipped for brevity]

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.� And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image,

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So tell us 1213, which came first? Plants or humans? Your mistake free Bible, in the same book no less, has two conflicting accounts.

I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking about Bibles with different numbers of books in them. Are you seriously not aware of these?

Bible is actually collection of books. If some version doesn’t have all the books, it is not necessary a mistake. It is not a problem, if all the books are not included in all versions.

Seriously? I know the Bible is a collection of books thus my question. If one 'Bible' is missing books or has different books than another you don't consider that a mistake?

What exactly DO you consider a mistake? Apparently it's not obvious contradictions or missing scripture in infallible 'Bibles'.

How about this, please list, or link to ALL the infallible books that COULD be included in a Bible. We wouldn't want to make a mistake and use a wrong book now would we? Or are you claiming that all versions of Bible, regardless of which books they contain are infallible?