Are you an atheist?

Are you an atheist?


  • Total voters
    351
Mike,
Religous faith:
-Is based on one historical text (such as the Bible) (as opposed to multiple).
QUOTE]


I think this is as dodgy a concept as Mike's sales pitch.

The fact that it is all in one place does not mean only one source.

The 4 gospels are surely 4 separate works.

Brian

Ok, say there are 4 works. It really doesn't matter because that is not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that religous faith is based on a SET and SMALL number of historical works, whether it be 1 or 4 or 4000, that are NOT subject to scrutiny or revision, which are by definition NOT held to ANY standard of evidence, much less the standard of evidence that the library of scientific works, which in contrast numbers in the hundreds of thousands, is constantly being revised and added to, are held to.
 
I'm actually quite amazed at the apparent (with the help of Google) knowlege of the USA posters on this thread.

It's generally accepted that their education system doesn't stray beyond the USA's borders.

It's almost as if some US posters may even know where Europe actually is.

Col

Thank you. I will take that as a compliment. But I hope this doesn't mean that you will be abating your U.S. bashing at all . . .
 
Ok, say there are 4 works. It really doesn't matter because that is not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that religous faith is based on a SET and SMALL number of historical works, whether it be 1 or 4 or 4000, that are NOT subject to scrutiny or revision, which are by definition NOT held to ANY standard of evidence, much less the standard of evidence that the library of scientific works, which in contrast numbers in the hundreds of thousands, is constantly being revised and added to, are held to.

If I were a believer I would say that there is no point or way to revise that which is correct. I think that what you have just said is a very weak argument as you are effectively saying that as the Bible/Koran/etc are not written to the same standards/controls etc as modern scientific reports they are not worth considering.

Brian
 
Last edited:
Mike,
You are using the word "faith" to mean more than one thing. The kind of "faith" I have when reading an article or book is completely different than religous faith.


Faith is believing when you lack evidence as in.....have faith:)

Let compare:
My "faith" in science:
-Is based on multiple sources that have examined MULTIPLE pieces of evidence over multiple centuries.


No your faith is believing what others have written and also having faith in their observations, at least in the general areas discussed on this thread. You have no direct evidence yourself. As I mentioned to Rabbie you can read about Access and physically test yourself and after a few tests yourself you can conclude that what you are reading is OK and so it is not necessary for you to test anymore.

-Is based on the concept that every possible explanation must be considered for each piece of evidence, and that a single peice of contradictory evidence invalidates a theory that may have been accepted for decades.

Things such as Big Bangs etc are often associated with a comment along the lines of......it works for most scenarios....

Take evolution. Do you think it is possible that a more definite answer to evolution would exist if it was known how life first started. Do you think a racing car commentator would be happy to give a comprehensive report on a car race if he did not see the start of the race? No, what he would do is put a big disclaimer in etc. So in this case......Is based on the concept that every possible explanation must be considered for each piece of evidence... is way off.

Religous faith:
-Is based on one historical text (such as the Bible) (as opposed to multiple).


The Bible is not the sole book and in addition the Bible is a collection of books.

But the Bible and others are not the sole guide. A belief in a supernatural can and often does develop without ever seeing a book such as the Bible. A belief in the supernatural stems from the unexplained, experience etc.

-Is not based on evidence, and goes so far as to reject the entire concept of evidence.

Like other books it claims to be be based on evidence. Noah saw a big heap of rain and reported what he saw. Virtually the entire Bible is based on people reporting their evidence.

-Is supported with claims about personal feelings that cannot be tested and cannot be falsified.

I think you should read up on Big Bangs and similar.
 
that are NOT subject to scrutiny or revision, which are by definition NOT held to ANY standard of evidence, much less the standard of evidence that the library of scientific works, which in contrast numbers in the hundreds of thousands, is constantly being revised and added to, are held to.

You can't possibly be serious that the Bible had not been subject scrutiny. It is one of the biggest topics on the internet.

So you are saying Richard Dawkins did not scrutinise the Bible. If the Bible has not be exaustively scrutinised then all the anti Bible stuff is not the worth the paper on which it is written.
 
Just like lots of science.

Last night on Paleoworld one bloke is 100% that birds descended from dinosaurs and the other bloke is 100% that is not the case.
An interesting point! There would appear to be 3 possible explanations

1. 1st bloke was 100% correct and other bloke was 100% wrong
or
2. 1st bloke was 100% wrong and other bloke was 100% correct
or
3. Both blokes were partially correct and partially wrong.

But where does this leave us with the gospels or other Holy Books. Believers tell us that they are all 100% correct even when they disagree. I am afraid my logic can't accept that.:(
 
Last edited:
You can't possibly be serious that the Bible had not been subject scrutiny. It is one of the biggest topics on the internet.

So you are saying Richard Dawkins did not scrutinise the Bible. If the Bible has not be exaustively scrutinised then all the anti Bible stuff is not the worth the paper on which it is written.
I don't doubt the scrutiny. I just don't see any sign of revision
 
Last edited:
The quote system seems to have got its knickers in a twist with the wrong people being accredited various quotes.

Brian
 
I don't doubt the scrutiny. I just don't see any sign of revision

The Bible is constant.

Most criticism of the Bible is off track. You either believe in the god in the Bible or you don't. If you believe in the god in the Bible then all is self solving. For example, the age of the earth etc. God could have made it as an object that was 4 billion years old. The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve were made as mature humans so they were 30 years old or whatever on day 1.

If God wanted a flood then he can have it..simple
 
Alisa,

You need to have a talk with this Hawking bloke (and others) and straighten him out

"Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion":D:D
 
"Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time,"

There are some much better ones than Hawking, I will save those for later:D
 
And if it were rewritten you would say "See I told you it was wrong, now who's to say it is correct now?"

My mother a Roman Catholic, was banned from communion when she married an Irish protestant in a registry office. In her eighties she was in hospital and her notes said that she was RC so a visiting priest asked her if she wanted to take communion, she explained the situation and he said that that policy had changed, she got great strength and comfort from her church in her late years, but the point is that religions can change their views , eg the Pope was not always celibate, I gather from talking to religious people that the interpretation of the Bible also is changed, if not the written word.

Brian
 
Alisa,

You need to have a talk with this Hawking bloke (and others) and straighten him out

"Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion":D:D

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, or how this is relevant to this debate. This is probably due to my newly diagnosed mental illness, courtesy of the brilliant psychiatrists available on the Access world forums. Nonetheless, I beg you to clarify.
 
And if it were rewritten you would say "See I told you it was wrong, now who's to say it is correct now?"
Brian

I don't see anybody volunteering to rewrite the bible based only on evidence that can be corroborated. Do you? If in fact somebody did volunteer for such a feat, I have no doubt they would be condemned as a heretic, given the adherence of most believers to the concept that their faith is not and should not be based on evidence that can be corroborated.
 
I don't see anybody volunteering to rewrite the bible based only on evidence that can be corroborated. Do you? If in fact somebody did volunteer for such a feat, I have no doubt they would be condemned as a heretic, given the adherence of most believers to the concept that their faith is not and should not be based on evidence that can be corroborated.
As I understand it the less evidence the more faith
 
Brian,

As far as I am aware the "born agains" and similar to not change how they interpret the Bible. Of course the formal religions are quite different.

One of the interesting ones with the catholic church was contraception. It was banned on the basis that sex was primarlily for reproduction. However the rhythm method was all OK because it "was natural". The fact that it was meant to avoid reproduction was not spoken of:D But I think most, probaly all, on this thread are in general agreement that the formal religions will stray from the Bible to suit their agenda.

But I put Hakwking's stuff up to illustrated how ridiculous some of Alisa's comments are in this general area.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom