How does evolution disprove the existence of God?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Look up 'theory'.Funky_Llama
You should have said "scientific theory" because if you just look up "theory" you can get this:
"contemplation or speculation." and "guess or conjecture."
Fortunately, this is there too:
"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a cIass of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."
Evolution DOES NOT DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
good we got that out of the way, anyway Darwin's "theory" has major evidence even is you only include archeological evidence. Anyway the the only possible way the theory of evolution could hurt the people's faith in god is by hurting the bible's, torrah, quran,etc is by hurting its credibility (after all this is the the first time science directly disproved a part of the bible.) Anyway up untill someone clones an already DEAD human being with no divine repercussions (see this might hurt one of the strongest points of religion because religion is made from ignorance.) Although i may sound as if i really want that to happen, dismantling the foundations, rules and morality upon which human civilisation is built upon may, emm have verrrry negative repercussions (plz don't clone a human being is the brief.)
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Look up 'theory'.foxhound_fox
You should have said "scientific theory" because if you just look up "theory" you can get this:
"contemplation or speculation." and "guess or conjecture."
Fortunately, this is there too:
"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a cIass of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."Hmm, I'm going to have to remember that. :x
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet, but I read something that wasn't quite right on the first page. Hypothesis is NOT scientific jargon for a guess, educated guess, or anything like that. In science, an hypothesis is a reasoned explanation for a single observation, which may or may not yet be substantiated by evidence. Wikipedia says, "A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena." It is NOT a guess. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about science, right next to a misunderstanding of what the word theory means. A scientific theory is an explanation for any number of scientific laws or relationships, backed up by extensive observation and experimentation. Both are falsifiable. JabbaDaHutt30It's pretty much a guess.
What, theories? Yes, the theory of gravity is just a guess..
It's pretty much a guess.JabbaDaHutt30
Hypotheses are "guesses" in the sense they don't have verifiable data to back them up. But that is not a "guess" in the colloquial sense. And a "theory" in science is far more concrete than any one "fact," since it is based on many facts and verifiable observations.
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"]It's pretty much a guess.foxhound_fox
Hypotheses are "guesses" in the sense they don't have verifiable data to back them up. But that is not a "guess" in the colloquial sense. And a "theory" in science is far more concrete than any one "fact," since it is based on many facts and verifiable observations.
The main reason I bring this up is because I'm a physics teacher (or soon to be anyway, doing my student teaching now) and I hate it when people say that hypotheses are just guesses. They are an explanation for an observation based on something that is already known to be true.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"]It's pretty much a guess.drewtwo99
Hypotheses are "guesses" in the sense they don't have verifiable data to back them up. But that is not a "guess" in the colloquial sense. And a "theory" in science is far more concrete than any one "fact," since it is based on many facts and verifiable observations.
The main reason I bring this up is because I'm a physics teacher (or soon to be anyway, doing my student teaching now) and I hate it when people say that hypotheses are just guesses. They are an explanation for an observation based on something that is already known to be true.
Yes, that is true. I think my physics teacher Senior year said he dislikes the use of the phrase 'educated guess'. Talk about coincidence. :P[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"]I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet, but I read something that wasn't quite right on the first page. Hypothesis is NOT scientific jargon for a guess, educated guess, or anything like that. In science, an hypothesis is a reasoned explanation for a single observation, which may or may not yet be substantiated by evidence. Wikipedia says, "A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena." It is NOT a guess. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about science, right next to a misunderstanding of what the word theory means. A scientific theory is an explanation for any number of scientific laws or relationships, backed up by extensive observation and experimentation. Both are falsifiable. drewtwo99It's pretty much a guess. Wrong. Read further why an educated guess is NOT a scientific hypothesis: In the United States of America, teachers of science in primary schools have often simplified the meaning of the term "hypothesis" by describing a hypothesis as "an educated guess". The failure to emphasize the explanatory or predictive quality of scientific hypotheses omits the concept's most important and characteristic feature: the purpose of hypotheses. People generate hypotheses as early attempts to explain patterns observed in nature or to predict the outcomes of experiments. For example, in science, one could correctly call the following statement a hypothesis: identical twins can have different personalities because the environment influences personality. In contrast, although one might have informed one's self about the qualifications of various political candidates, making an educated guess about the outcome of an election would qualify as a scientific hypothesis only if the guess includes an underpinning generic explanation. It's pretty much an early educated guess that is sometimes backed up by evidence.
Or a proposal, if you wanna call it that.
The main reason I bring this up is because I'm a physics teacher (or soon to be anyway, doing my student teaching now) and I hate it when people say that hypotheses are just guesses. They are an explanation for an observation based on something that is already known to be true. drewtwo99
"Known" isn't the word I'd use there. "Appears" is far more appropriate. Because until research and testing has been done to verify the claim, it cannot be "known true."
It's pretty much an early educated guess that is sometimes backed up by evidence.JabbaDaHutt30
"Guess" is not the right word to describe a hypothesis. It implies that what is being researched is based purely on assumption and conjecture. When in reality, when a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, it generally has some grounding in reality, non-verified and untested reality.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]The main reason I bring this up is because I'm a physics teacher (or soon to be anyway, doing my student teaching now) and I hate it when people say that hypotheses are just guesses. They are an explanation for an observation based on something that is already known to be true. foxhound_fox
"Known" isn't the word I'd use there. "Appears" is far more appropriate. Because until research and testing has been done to verify the claim, it cannot be "known true." A hypothesis isn't known to be true, but the backing up piece of it/explanation is. For example, a good scientific hypothesis might be that the moon appears larger on the horizon because the refraction of light through a volume of fluid causes images to appear distorted. The hypothesis itself is wrong, but the explanation is in fact true. That's what I mean.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"]The main reason I bring this up is because I'm a physics teacher (or soon to be anyway, doing my student teaching now) and I hate it when people say that hypotheses are just guesses. They are an explanation for an observation based on something that is already known to be true. foxhound_fox
"Known" isn't the word I'd use there. "Appears" is far more appropriate. Because until research and testing has been done to verify the claim, it cannot be "known true." I think he was talking about the elements that are the cause of an event.
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"]I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet, but I read something that wasn't quite right on the first page. Hypothesis is NOT scientific jargon for a guess, educated guess, or anything like that. In science, an hypothesis is a reasoned explanation for a single observation, which may or may not yet be substantiated by evidence. Wikipedia says, "A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena." It is NOT a guess. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about science, right next to a misunderstanding of what the word theory means. A scientific theory is an explanation for any number of scientific laws or relationships, backed up by extensive observation and experimentation. Both are falsifiable. drewtwo99It's pretty much a guess. Wrong. Read further why an educated guess is NOT a scientific hypothesis: In the United States of America, teachers of science in primary schools have often simplified the meaning of the term "hypothesis" by describing a hypothesis as "an educated guess". The failure to emphasize the explanatory or predictive quality of scientific hypotheses omits the concept's most important and characteristic feature: the purpose of hypotheses. People generate hypotheses as early attempts to explain patterns observed in nature or to predict the outcomes of experiments. For example, in science, one could correctly call the following statement a hypothesis: identical twins can have different personalities because the environment influences personality. In contrast, although one might have informed one's self about the qualifications of various political candidates, making an educated guess about the outcome of an election would qualify as a scientific hypothesis only if the guess includes an underpinning generic explanation. Just a little side note, I was taught in junior highschool that an 'educated guess' in science was an inference. I dunno what the standard is like in the US, no offense but it must be pretty damn poor to have so many people ignorant of what science is.
because genesis says god created man and then woman from a ribcage of man.
and evolution disproves this theory.
that said there are christian biologists like Ken Miller.
he defended evolution against Intelligent design and won!!!
he think the bible isn't literal.
but imo he's wrong. because the bible was intended as literal.
that's why religion like that is popular. many people find the world a mystery.
and in the absence of science and technology some sort of claimed knowledge is important.
religion filled the gap but no longer needed!
but imo he's wrong. because the bible was intended as literal.Great_Ragnarok
The problem with such a claim is that objective reality contradicts almost everything written within the Old Testament about "history."
[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]but imo he's wrong. because the bible was intended as literal.foxhound_fox
The problem with such a claim is that objective reality contradicts almost everything written within the Old Testament about "history." lol yes Im atheist. I was just saying that imo the bible was meant to be a literal book by the author. so we shouldn't pay attention to it. Ken Miller says its not literal god is still real... basically christians just keep finding places for god to hide. whenever you shine a light at him he dissapears... almost like he doesn't exist.lol.
lol yes Im atheist. I was just saying that imo the bible was meant to be a literal book by the author. so we shouldn't pay attention to it. Ken Miller says its not literal god is still real... basically christians just keep finding places for god to hide. whenever you shine a light at him he dissapears... almost like he doesn't exist.lol.Great_Ragnarok
Well, I'd personally say that all religious texts aren't meant to be literal at all. At least from my perspective. They do better as a code of morality and way of life than they do recorded history... since so many of them rely on convoluted myth and retelling of actual events to better fit with the moral guideline.
I doubt anyone serious enough to actually understand the objectivism of science would ever take a religious text completely literally. Which is why Miller is so easily able to justify being both scientist and Catholic.
[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]lol yes Im atheist. I was just saying that imo the bible was meant to be a literal book by the author. so we shouldn't pay attention to it. Ken Miller says its not literal god is still real... basically christians just keep finding places for god to hide. whenever you shine a light at him he dissapears... almost like he doesn't exist.lol.foxhound_fox
Well, I'd personally say that all religious texts aren't meant to be literal at all. At least from my perspective. They do better as a code of morality and way of life than they do recorded history... since so many of them rely on convoluted myth and retelling of actual events to better fit with the moral guideline.
I doubt anyone serious enough to actually understand the objectivism of science would ever take a religious text completely literally. Which is why Miller is so easily able to justify being both scientist and Catholic. yeah thats why Ken milller has no problem with is. but I still think many highly descriptive parts of religion meant to be literal. I agree there's morality as well. but have look at some of the ridiculous parts of the bible. start with the genesis. what other possible meaning could it have? anyway what can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence...
yeah thats why Ken milller has no problem with is. but I still think many highly descriptive parts of religion meant to be literal. I agree there's morality as well. but have look at some of the ridiculous parts of the bible. start with the genesis. what other possible meaning could it have? anyway what can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence...Great_Ragnarok
The Old Testament is definitely the much more morality focused part of the Bible (despite having some seriously immoral messages). Those "events" are so convoluted and non-factual, they might as well be considered pure fiction from an objective standpoint. Demonstrable evidence has already shown us that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe, was not created 6000 years ago and humanity was not made from dirt.
I don't do much interpretations myself but I bet there are a lot of people out there who could tell you why much of the Old Testament, in a metaphorical sense, is important to understanding the New Testament.
The movie Dragonball Evolution proves there is no god.CreepingDeath_ahaha
start with the genesis. what other possible meaning could it have?Great_Ragnarok
Go back some 4000 years into the past. You're Moses, and you're leading a bunch of guys a few millenia before science even really existed. God comes down and explains to you in great detail about the Big Bang and about how space expanded along with matter some 14 billion years ago, blah blah blah, do you really think anyone's going to have any clue what he's talking about? The story of creation in Genesis was not the point. The fact that such and such happened on day 1, then this happened on day 2, etc. was just a poetic device.
If you want a real point to the Genesis story, it can be found by the fact that God rested and did absolutely nothing whatsoever on the seventh day. That was new, at least to the Israelites. They had been in slavery for however long and had never had a day of rest in their lives, and all of a sudden here comes God, the omnipotent creator of the universe, who not only rested, but rested for an entire day. And he wanted them to rest so much that he even slapped it in as one of the ten fundamental commandments to the Israelite people - "honor the Sabbath and keep it holy". In other words, don't work yourselves to death, dummies. That's one of the parts that the Israelites were to apply very seriously to their everyday lives. The rest of the story, though? Basically metaphorical, and really rather inconsequential in the broad scheme of things; nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to believe that the universe was literally created as it is today in six days or else you go to Hell.
Most of the Old Testament makes a lot more sense, really, if you view it in its proper historical context as instructions to the Jewish people of that time period.
[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"] but imo he's wrong. because the bible was intended as literal. 123625:/ No, I most certaintly think this was not the case.
The problem is that for hundreds of years everyone thought the bible was to be taken literaly and everyone was fine with that, but the suddenly someone actually uses rationality and says that this is all wrong and we can prove that. So now instead of saying OK its true it was all made up, it becomes some mysterious book that is open to interpretaion and lets all try to find a loophole that explains all this rational evidence but in an irrational way. I mean lets face it when you prove someone is lying consistently to you you dont then believe the next thing they say to you unless you are very gulible and stupid so why does religion get a free pass to talk this crap and have people believe it.
:/ No, I most certaintly think this was not the case.[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]
erm so to bring that one point this god had to write a whole bunch of nonsense to get a point across. what a stupid god! and yeah if god TAUGHT them science then how awesome would that be. we would be so advanced and healthy by now. no cancer or disease etc. thing is whether you like it or not the genesis was meant to be taken literally. because those actions by god was the confirmation for all his infinite power etc. hence it holds no purpose these days. no actually it has the opposite. it harms society should it continue to hold gibberish like that.
[QUOTE="Wolls"]
[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"] but imo he's wrong. because the bible was intended as literal. GabuEx
The problem is that for hundreds of years everyone thought the bible was to be taken literaly and everyone was fine with that, but the suddenly someone actually uses rationality and says that this is all wrong and we can prove that. So now instead of saying OK its true it was all made up, it becomes some mysterious book that is open to interpretaion and lets all try to find a loophole that explains all this rational evidence but in an irrational way. I mean lets face it when you prove someone is lying consistently to you you dont then believe the next thing they say to you unless you are very gulible and stupid so why does religion get a free pass to talk this crap and have people believe it.
dude you said it perfectly!
If God created us in his image, but we evolved from apes - doesn't that make God a monkey?Avenger1324No it makes God one of the simplest single celled organisms in the universe. If evolution is true then you might as well go all the way right?
erm so to bring that one point this god had to write a whole bunch of nonsense to get a point across. what a stupid god! and yeah if god TAUGHT them science then how awesome would that be. we would be so advanced and healthy by now. no cancer or disease etc. thing is whether you like it or not the genesis was meant to be taken literally. because those actions by god was the confirmation for all his infinite power etc. hence it holds no purpose these days. no actually it has the opposite. it harms society should it continue to hold gibberish like that.
Great_Ragnarok
Way back in even around AD 400, St. Augustine wrote the following with regards to how one ought to interpret the Bible:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
The idea that the Bible was interpreted completely literally by everyone until just recently is - no offense - a myth. Christian fundamentalism is, in fact, a very recent phenomenon, which first came about in the late nineteenth century, largely in response to the growing authority of science and its intellectual rigor.
The Bible is not a science textbook, and it never was a science textbook, nor was it ever even intended to be a science textbook, and those attempting to use it as one are basically in error in doing so.
He doesn't exist. Who created him?I dont get this. If God exists then He created the laws of science and nature, so it's only logical to believe that He would have them applied from the beginning of the chain.
Am I missing something about evolution or what?
Stranger_4
[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]start with the genesis. what other possible meaning could it have?GabuEx
Go back some 4000 years into the past. You're Moses, and you're leading a bunch of guys a few millenia before science even really existed. God comes down and explains to you in great detail about the Big Bang and about how space expanded along with matter some 14 billion years ago, blah blah blah, do you really think anyone's going to have any clue what he's talking about? The story of creation in Genesis was not the point. The fact that such and such happened on day 1, then this happened on day 2, etc. was just a poetic device.
If you want a real point to the Genesis story, it can be found by the fact that God rested and did absolutely nothing whatsoever on the seventh day. That was new, at least to the Israelites. They had been in slavery for however long and had never had a day of rest in their lives, and all of a sudden here comes God, the omnipotent creator of the universe, who not only rested, but rested for an entire day. And he wanted them to rest so much that he even slapped it in as one of the ten fundamental commandments to the Israelite people - "honor the Sabbath and keep it holy". In other words, don't work yourselves to death, dummies. That's one of the parts that the Israelites were to apply very seriously to their everyday lives. The rest of the story, though? Basically metaphorical, and really rather inconsequential in the broad scheme of things; nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to believe that the universe was literally created as it is today in six days or else you go to Hell.
Most of the Old Testament makes a lot more sense, really, if you view it in its proper historical context as instructions to the Jewish people of that time period.
Actually, most of the religious people I know (outside of Gamespot) take the "created the Earth etc. in 7 days" story to be a metaphor; I know just about nobody who believes it literally.
I'm an agnostic, but I've always interpreted the Bible as a series of parables and other tales that were not in and of themselves real, but which provided very real ideas and means by which people should lead their lives. The point of Christianity, in my humble opinion, is to adhere to sets of moral ideals and spiritual ideas outlined in The Bible and by the alleged prophets. I don't understand why The Bible must be interpreted literally. Attempting to justify a literal interpretation of The Bible does not enhance the argument for Christianity being the "true religion;" in fact, by asserting rationally inexplicable stories to be true, Christian fundamentalists undermine their religion by distancing others from it.
I have never understood people who interpret The Bible to be literal, and refuse to accept otherwise. Does it really at all undermine their religion whether the stories in The Bible are thought of to be parables, etc., and not literal accounts?
[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]start with the genesis. what other possible meaning could it have?chessmaster1989
Go back some 4000 years into the past. You're Moses,...
Most of the Old Testament makes a lot more sense, really, if you view it in its proper historical context as instructions to the Jewish people of that time period.
Actually, most of the religious people I know (outside of Gamespot) take the "created the Earth etc. in 7 days" story to be a metaphor; I know just about nobody who believes it literally.
....
That's true for me too.Gamespot is the place where I found people who firmly believe that the 7 days reference is literal. Go figure... :?
[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]
erm so to bring that one point this god had to write a whole bunch of nonsense to get a point across. what a stupid god! and yeah if god TAUGHT them science then how awesome would that be. we would be so advanced and healthy by now. no cancer or disease etc. thing is whether you like it or not the genesis was meant to be taken literally. because those actions by god was the confirmation for all his infinite power etc. hence it holds no purpose these days. no actually it has the opposite. it harms society should it continue to hold gibberish like that.
GabuEx
Way back in even around AD 400, St. Augustine wrote the following with regards to how one ought to interpret the Bible:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
The idea that the Bible was interpreted completely literally by everyone until just recently is - no offense - a myth. Christian fundamentalism is, in fact, a very recent phenomenon, which first came about in the late nineteenth century, largely in response to the growing authority of science and its intellectual rigor.
The Bible is not a science textbook, and it never was a science textbook, nor was it ever even intended to be a science textbook, and those attempting to use it as one are basically in error in doing so.
I don't think god would explain anything of that sort to Moses, let alone Moses being able to articulate a well tuned allegory that ctaches all the main points of what god said into a well layed-out story.In fact in the possibility of the existence of god, I don't think he/she/it would communicate with people in that way. And here comes the question of what god is. Is it a personal god? If it is then it is subjective and most likely not god but our inner thoughts - perhaps our super egos. Thus such an imagery of god is false to hold as universal.
But then again why would a god be universal? In the sense that a god can still dictate people to act in the same way. but to be viewed by people in millions of different way, through unique for everyone witnessing experiences.
Now as of if the Bible was meant literally, I think it was meant as a literal approach to reality. The fact that it takes imagination to formulate beliefs such as the 7 days of creation, does not mean that it is intentional. Imagination for those people (as for any other culture that preceeded) must have been triggered the moment something unknown came to view, the moment a new, unanswerable question arose. And it wasn't seen as imagination the way we mean it today. I think that for those people, it was common place to imagine and to suppose and to wonder and ..and ...and..
Actually, most of the religious people I know (outside of Gamespot) take the "created the Earth etc. in 7 days" story to be a metaphor; I know just about nobody who believes it literally.chessmaster1989
I don't find that surprising at all. Biblical literalism is a minority view in pretty much every country, except perhaps for the United States. This is one of the many reasons why I find it bizarre how authoritatively Christian fundamentalists tend to preach what they believe.
I'm an agnostic, but I've always interpreted the Bible as a series of parables and other tales that were not in and of themselves real, but which provided very real ideas and means by which people should lead their lives. The point of Christianity, in my humble opinion, is to adhere to sets of moral ideals and spiritual ideas outlined in The Bible and by the alleged prophets. I don't understand why The Bible must be interpreted literally. Attempting to justify a literal interpretation of The Bible does not enhance the argument for Christianity being the "true religion;" in fact, by asserting rationally inexplicable stories to be true, Christian fundamentalists undermine their religion by distancing others from it.chessmaster1989
See my last post. St. Augustine from AD 400 pretty much fully agrees with that view.
I have never understood people who interpret The Bible to be literal, and refuse to accept otherwise. Does it really at all undermine their religion whether the stories in The Bible are thought of to be parables, etc., and not literal accounts?chessmaster1989
My view is that it's a combination of insecurity and desire for power (although it could be argued that those two are even the same thing). If you're a Biblical literalist, then you have God in your corner, and you're always right, because everything you say is 100% backed up by the omnipotent creator of the universe. Along the same line, if everything you say is 100% backed up by God, then you also have the full authority to thrust everything you believe onto other people, as well - just look at what happened to Copernicus and Galileo.
A metaphorical interpretation of the Bible gives you none of this. It's no wonder that pretty well every bad thing that came out of religion throughout history arose from a literalistview of the relevant holy text.
[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]
erm so to bring that one point this god had to write a whole bunch of nonsense to get a point across. what a stupid god! and yeah if god TAUGHT them science then how awesome would that be. we would be so advanced and healthy by now. no cancer or disease etc. thing is whether you like it or not the genesis was meant to be taken literally. because those actions by god was the confirmation for all his infinite power etc. hence it holds no purpose these days. no actually it has the opposite. it harms society should it continue to hold gibberish like that.
GabuEx
Way back in even around AD 400, St. Augustine wrote the following with regards to how one ought to interpret the Bible:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."
The idea that the Bible was interpreted completely literally by everyone until just recently is - no offense - a myth. Christian fundamentalism is, in fact, a very recent phenomenon, which first came about in the late nineteenth century, largely in response to the growing authority of science and its intellectual rigor.
The Bible is not a science textbook, and it never was a science textbook, nor was it ever even intended to be a science textbook, and those attempting to use it as one are basically in error in doing so.
the reason people believe the bible literaly is because that gives them confirmation that god is great etc. so like I said before what is the point of all those hundreds of pages of lying gibberish? surely they could streamline all the crap and just said here are the morals etc. the reason they included these hard to believe stories is so that people will consider god to be awesome. otherwise noone would start believing in it. Christianity simply has no place in the present. it belongs to the past just like many other mistakes of humanity. btw I'm talking about all god believing gibberish.Humans havent flown anywhere near ALL dude!It's not evolution that disproves god, Its the fact that in all of mankind's scientific endeavours we have never EVER come across any single shred of evidence that lends any credence to the existence of some mystical sky wizard.
There is no heaven also because we've flown ALL the way out of the atmosphere and found nothing, the only thing below us is our planet, no hell.
The Christian mythos was thought up by a bunch of iron age goat herders, and I wouldn't trust a goat herder to comprehend the universe.
Warhammer882006
How does it?because genesis says god created man and then woman from a ribcage of man.
and evolution disproves this theory.
Great_Ragnarok
[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]yeah thats why Ken milller has no problem with is. but I still think many highly descriptive parts of religion meant to be literal. I agree there's morality as well. but have look at some of the ridiculous parts of the bible. start with the genesis. what other possible meaning could it have? anyway what can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence...foxhound_fox
The Old Testament is definitely the much more morality focused part of the Bible (despite having some seriously immoral messages). Those "events" are so convoluted and non-factual, they might as well be considered pure fiction from an objective standpoint. Demonstrable evidence has already shown us that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe, was not created 6000 years ago and humanity was not made from dirt.
I don't do much interpretations myself but I bet there are a lot of people out there who could tell you why much of the Old Testament, in a metaphorical sense, is important to understanding the New Testament.How has it been proved that humanity was not made from dirt?
to people who keep saying the bible isn't literal etc. I ask you then what point did all those gibberish have? it was clearly meant to be an explanation of the world. a failed explanation that any smart individual would reject. you have to let go of unskillful things and embrace skillful things. not continue to blind yourself with mysticism and imaginary problems.Great_RagnarokSince when were poetic writings meant to be taken 100% literally? But ya if it is talking about some fact as in teaching others about it then ya it's meant to be taken literally. It just needs a little bit of comonsense to see which parts are meant to be taken literally and which are not.
Oh and bible has been alterted, that's hwy it has errors, the original word of God was perfect.
How does it? God literally created man from dirt and then a woman from his rib. Evolution does not say that is how man came to be. Literal interpretations of Genesis are shown to be not true with evolution.[QUOTE="Great_Ragnarok"]
because genesis says god created man and then woman from a ribcage of man.
and evolution disproves this theory.
Stranger_4
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment