inafoxhole (inafoxhole) wrote,

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 So I fill it with real historical references as though it were really happening in the real world.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.
Tags: arguments for god, bible, christians

  • New Testament...part 3?

    Picking up from yesterday, the second leg of the trip... This is still acts of the apostles. My guess with Paul and his vision, is that he was…

  • New Testament...part 2?

    So, the continuing saga of Haysoos continues... The new testament has its problems, of course, but it's not as engaging as the old testament, and I…

  • It's not my morning

    Trying to respond to a post by Austin Cline this morning and having no luck. I've trimmed by comment back to 1800 characters and I'm still getting…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded