?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

50 reasons (NOT) to believe in god

#34 The evidence from lituratre & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

Didn't I deal with this same claim a couple days ago?

Let's try another approach. Suppose I want to write a story that people will connect to. So I fill it with real historical references as though it were really happening in the real world. Would my including real historical details make the rest of the story true?

Just because I refer to Nebucadnezzer, does that make the details true? Just because I set the story in a real city, does that make it true?

If our theist is nodding their head yes, they are full of shit.

But I did that one before, so let's do the next too.

#35 From the birth of science through today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity and science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians: Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

Boy, there is so much wrong with this.

First of all, just because a scientist believes it, doesn't make it so. I hate to admit that, but scientists believe in all kinds of shit sometimes. What matters is not that they believe it, but that they can prove it. Science is not "what scientists think", it's "what scientists can prove". So saying that Francis Bacon was a believer doesn't mean anything to me at all.

Secondly, let's also point out that a great many scientists were not only not Christians, but often had their own peculiar set of beliefs. Newton was at best a heretic; if you read some of the nonsense he wrote about alchemy and the spiritual side of gravity, you'd know this. Einstein was a Jewish pantheist. Not to mention the good number of others who were/are atheists. So there is certainly nothing about science that lends itself in particular to religious belief, or to any particular religious belief. As a proof of the existence of god, the statement has once again fallen short.

Thirdly, while some Christians, like Catholics who like to interpret the Bible metaphorically when it suits them, might be able to claim with a straight face that there is nothing non-biblical about science and that the two are not in opposition, I strongly suspect that not all believers would agree. Fundamentalist Protestants and their literalist interpretation certainly see that there is a choice between believing in a literal seven-day creation or believing in the big bang and evolution (that together took 13.7 billion years). You can't have both. So the idea of 'god did it' as an answer to the mechanisms of science is simply not enough to save the bible. Depending on how one defines 'Christian', you just can't have it both ways. And depending on how one defines the 'birth' of 'science', the first scientists very well could be pagans, or even Muslims... not Christians at all. So how a Muslim or a pagan doing science proves the validity of a Christian bible which it literally contradicts... I just don't get it.

Lastly, the fact that people claim to be able to compartmentalize and believe two contradictory things at the same time speaks more to insanity than to behaviour that should be modeled.

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
(Anonymous)
Sep. 30th, 2008 07:57 pm (UTC)
OK, first of all catholics are not christians, they are worshiping mary, not jesus so thats not a christion.and i did not take 13.billion years, thev been changing the time span for how longe it took the world to be made for decades literaly,i would personaly believe i was created by an all powerful God then from a piece of slime on a rock evolving for millions of years with no particular pupose.and do you actualy belive that once you die its just over? nothing? well when you die you will be in for a suprise. trust me ont that
inafoxhole
Sep. 30th, 2008 08:18 pm (UTC)
Yet another anonymous theist, eh?
OK, first of all catholics are not christians, they are worshiping mary, not jesus so thats not a christion.

If you really believe that, you are a bigger fool than most believers, because that's patently absurd, not to mention ignorant and bigotted. Do you even know any Catholics? Have you ever asked one what they believe? I was raised Catholic and I can assure you from firsthand indoctrination, that they most certainly do not worship Mary in the way you claim they do.

and i did not take 13.billion years, thev been changing the time span for how longe it took the world to be made for decades literaly

More proof that you don't know a thing about how science works. Yes, they've been changing the estimate for the age of the universe for a while now, but the estimates have been getting closer together over time and fluctuating less each time. Science is a series of successive approximations, each one better than the last. The fact that the estimates proposed "change" does not mean that the Earth is 6000 years old is a better alternative, nor does it suggest in any way that the estimate is inherently "bad" and worthy of dogmatic rejection.

i would personaly believe i was created by an all powerful God then from a piece of slime on a rock evolving for millions of years with no particular pupose.

Your preference in the matter is beside the point. I used to prefer that too. But there is wishful thinking, and there is reality. I choose reality. You obviously have no connection with it whatsoever, as if your Catholics aren't Christians comment above wasn't enough proof.

and do you actualy belive that once you die its just over? nothing?

Actually, I do, but that's because I haven't seen convincing evidence for any other conclusion. Again, reality vs. fantasy.

well when you die you will be in for a suprise. trust me ont that

Perhaps, but that will be the ultimate test of evidence, won't it. Too bad I won't be there in spirit to gloat if I should prove correct. And quite frankly, what possible reason have you given me to trust you with anything? At this point, I wouldn't even trust you to feed my cat.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

science wins
inafoxhole
inafoxhole

Latest Month

June 2011
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek