2008 Political debate thread

[fullnelson]

Not really sure I follow your angle there...

Yeah, Noble Savage pretty much got what I was saying. I think in better terms: science is a method, and religion is a belief.

Science is a guideline for testing hypotheses. It isn't a justification for wrong doing because it doesn't give any motives. Science doesn't dictate a lifestyle. Unethical experiments not appropriate for society can be regulated. True corruption in science is falsifying data. Saying something like "acupuncture has been proven to cure musculoskeletal problems" is an example.

Religion on the other hand is used for justification for many atrocities as well as many beautiful things. A vague passage in the Bible may trigger any number of possible reactions. Any of which are perfectly legal to teach to impressionable children. There is no objective rational for saying that the "corrupted" version is any less wrong than yours because both are beliefs and both are taken right from the text. You may not subscribe to Old Testament barbarism, but I guarantee many people do.

I don't like the idea of claiming to know information without any evidence. Since religion does this, it is just inherently dishonest and irrational, in my opinion. I would think, after learning what we have about the origins of ourselves and our planet, it would be more obvious. The only things standing in the way of enhancing that knowledge are various religions because believers can't cope with the contradictions holy books have with real world observations. All of which had no idea that microorganisms caused disease, molten rock currents under continental plates caused earthquakes, the Earth is spherical, or that the universe is actually larger than anyone can comprehend. I don't understand how no holy book knows any of this. God was the genius behind them .

 

[noble savage]

Yeah, Noble Savage pretty much got what I was saying. I think in better terms: science is a method, and religion is a belief.

Science is a guideline for testing hypotheses. It isn't a justification for wrong doing because it doesn't give any motives. Science doesn't dictate a lifestyle. Unethical experiments not appropriate for society can be regulated. True corruption in science is falsifying data. Saying something like "acupuncture has been proven to cure musculoskeletal problems" is an example.

Religion on the other hand is used for justification for many atrocities as well as many beautiful things. A vague passage in the Bible may trigger any number of possible reactions. Any of which are perfectly legal to teach to impressionable children. There is no objective rational for saying that the "corrupted" version is any less wrong than yours because both are beliefs and both are taken right from the text. You may not subscribe to Old Testament barbarism, but I guarantee many people do.

I don't like the idea of claiming to know information without any evidence. Since religion does this, it is just inherently dishonest and irrational, in my opinion. I would think, after learning what we have about the origins of ourselves and our planet, it would be more obvious. The only things standing in the way of enhancing that knowledge are various religions because believers can't cope with the contradictions holy books have with real world observations. All of which had no idea that microorganisms caused disease, molten rock currents under continental plates caused earthquakes, the Earth is spherical, or that the universe is actually larger than anyone can comprehend. I don't understand how no holy book knows any of this. God was the genius behind them .

Brilliantly said! I have asked many believers around me something along the lines of your last two sentences and the only vague response I got was "...Oh.. god works in mysterious ways". Or something like that.

Why exactly would a creature that has; the knowledge, intelligence and technology to create ~70 sextillion stars in ~125 billion galaxies, who has the ability to adjust the physical constants, to create black holes and the strangeness of Quantum Theory take any part in influencing a book that has talking snakes, people living past 100 years old, great floods, unicorns, fairies, a 6000 year old universe etc? It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not omniscient, omnipotent or omnipresent, in fact I'm quite stupid. But if I where to create a universe and write a holy book, it would contain actual science and no vague terms or mystical creatures that we now know never existed. I wouldn't pop up on grilled cheeses and in tree trunks (Ok, maybe I would..). Nor would I threaten or hurt people who question my vague existence. That would be immoral, cosmic bullying.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Yeah, Noble Savage pretty much got what I was saying. I think in better terms: science is a method, and religion is a belief.

Science is a guideline for testing hypotheses. It isn't a justification for wrong doing because it doesn't give any motives. Science doesn't dictate a lifestyle. Unethical experiments not appropriate for society can be regulated. True corruption in science is falsifying data. Saying something like "acupuncture has been proven to cure musculoskeletal problems" is an example.

Religion on the other hand is used for justification for many atrocities as well as many beautiful things. A vague passage in the Bible may trigger any number of possible reactions. Any of which are perfectly legal to teach to impressionable children. There is no objective rational for saying that the "corrupted" version is any less wrong than yours because both are beliefs and both are taken right from the text. You may not subscribe to Old Testament barbarism, but I guarantee many people do.

I don't like the idea of claiming to know information without any evidence. Since religion does this, it is just inherently dishonest and irrational, in my opinion. I would think, after learning what we have about the origins of ourselves and our planet, it would be more obvious. The only things standing in the way of enhancing that knowledge are various religions because believers can't cope with the contradictions holy books have with real world observations. All of which had no idea that microorganisms caused disease, molten rock currents under continental plates caused earthquakes, the Earth is spherical, or that the universe is actually larger than anyone can comprehend. I don't understand how no holy book knows any of this. God was the genius behind them .

I get what you're saying here but there are some mistakes.

1. Ethics and science are seperate things. The former can be applied to the latter, but it is not inherent. Like you initially stated, science is merely a method.

2. However, since science is almost always inductive, a certain measure of belief is necessary to come to any conclusion. In that respect, it is like religion.

3. Conversely, you state that "corrupted" belief taken from the same source is just as valid as other belief. I disagree on the basis that in the context of the whole, it is contradictory. Thus its identification as corrupted.

4. Now you're just setting up a straw man. As stated in 1-3, just as in science we cannot conclude that X causes Y without evidence, one should not believe any information, regardless of source, without rational evidence. This evidence does exist for many various religous texts, typically in the form of archealogical discovery. Many of these historical and scientific records agree with events pinpointed in religious text. In such a way, we can validate that X event is true. Some make the mistake of attempting to validate or invalidate the entire book based on X event.

5. Your final accusation that religious text is ignorant of disease and basic physics is again an overgeneralization. Many religious texts contain strict passages about sexual conduct, behaviour around dead bodies, and cleanliness. They may not have been aware of the microscopic organisms that cause disease, but they understood the effect and how to combat it.

Chris:

Not all Christians are "Young Earth" believers. Personally, I find that theory absurd given carbon dating. Even without that, there have been discoveries in California and more recently in Norway of tree groves 4000 to 8000 years old. The simple method of counting the rings should eliminate all doubt in even the staunchest skeptic of more complex carbon dating methods.

Secondly, you believe that should God exist, he should imbue in mankind the knowledge he possesses. To what end? So that we would all be gods? It seems more worthwhile for us to reach that height, if we ever do, on our own discovery. We are meant to learn, not just cheat the answers. This then directly segues into the method of communication with early civilizations: speak in the language and symbolism that they understand. A snake is a more easily identifyable evil than say, Black Holes.

Finally, you accuse the epic nature of religious texts of being like faerie tales. Dismissing them on sheer absurdity, out of hand. Do not pulsars, dark matter, dark energy, quantum particles, hypothetical particles, big bang, big rip, crunch, and all of the theories (which I will not ridicule, as they are of value) sound just as absurd?

 

[Swabs]

Finally, you accuse the epic nature of religious texts of being like faerie tales. Dismissing them on sheer absurdity, out of hand. Do not pulsars, dark matter, dark energy, quantum particles, hypothetical particles, big bang, big rip, crunch, and all of the theories (which I will not ridicule, as they are of value) sound just as absurd?

No because in most cases these theories can at least be somewhat explained using knowledge that we already possess. How would you explain a man walking on water or turning water into wine?

 

[noble savage]

Chris:

Not all Christians are "Young Earth" believers. Personally, I find that theory absurd given carbon dating. Even without that, there have been discoveries in California and more recently in Norway of tree groves 4000 to 8000 years old. The simple method of counting the rings should eliminate all doubt in even the staunchest skeptic of more complex carbon dating methods.

Yes, I completely agree. I know you have researched this subject personally. I was kind of directing this aspect at people who haven't. I know many family members and friends who deny evidence for an old Earth for various reasons. I have noticed that regardless of evidence, they don't budge in their beliefs.

Secondly, you believe that should God exist, he should imbue in mankind the knowledge he possesses. To what end? So that we would all be gods? It seems more worthwhile for us to reach that height, if we ever do, on our own discovery. We are meant to learn, not just cheat the answers. This then directly segues into the method of communication with early civilizations: speak in the language and symbolism that they understand. A snake is a more easily identifyable evil than say, Black Holes.

Well, I can see how this would be true, depending on the intent of a designer of a universe. But wouldn't, say, a single paragraph in the bible of something like: "The nature of light, in quanta (Even a more ambiguous, but unmistakable word) , will be that of the rippling ocean and also that of a rock". Or something like that, if you catch my drift. Maybe not as stupid. Just something that, without the proper background would make no sense whatsoever and could easily read without a second thought. It wouldn't lead people in any direction, but after obtaining prerequisite knowledge, would be an unmistakable sign of a higher intelligence. I mean, for a god that, when read in the context of the bible, gets angry at non-believers, believers in other gods or people who desecrate Eucharists etc, She sure has left a lot of room for speculation.

Finally, you accuse the epic nature of religious texts of being like faerie tales. Dismissing them on sheer absurdity, out of hand. Do not pulsars, dark matter, dark energy, quantum particles, hypothetical particles, big bang, big rip, crunch, and all of the theories (which I will not ridicule, as they are of value) sound just as absurd?

I also agree here, but these strange phenomena are back by evidence and physical laws with equations and testable predictions. If I was completely ignorant of scripture and science and someone said: "What would you believe more: a talking snake or an object so dense that even the light from our Sun could not escape". I would probably say the talking snake is most plausible on the basis that snakes are at least part of my observable reality. But again, both of my assumptions would be mere speculations. Now suppose a man with a mustache and crazy hair makes the assertion that matter warps space producing gravity and, if dense enough, could cause a black hole. I would dismiss it, but if his equations provide testable predictions, like gravitational lensing, and a slight refinement of Newtons inverse square law (Which later show to be correct) I would accept it. Quantum Physics arose out of the need to explain black body radiation. It was never started, nor intended to take the form it has today, of something as strange as it is. It was a natural outcome of observation.

It would be one thing if someone caught a talking snake or a fairy, but no one has. As strange as Physics is, it does has an impact on our reality. Quantum Tunneling and particles existing and not existing by a wave function which depends on a persons observations is fucking weird. So are some of the stories of the Bible, but there is a difference. In regards to the last sentence of your second paragraph, I would actually find a talking snake amazing and far from evil. I'm sure given the knowledge to choose between facing a black hole or a talking snake, most would choose the snake. I find the black hole much more evil and sinister.

I like this conversation so far!

 

[Kenneth R.]

No because in most cases these theories can at least be somewhat explained using knowledge that we already possess. How would you explain a man walking on water or turning water into wine?

How would you explain dark energy? Some things are not yet known in science. Moreover, that knowledge that we "already possess" was acquired at some point through discovery, belief, and acceptance.

Chris: If you were God, and you were trying to convince people of something that you know for certain is true, but they ignore you or believe other lies, wouldn't you get frustrated too?

Also, I agree with what you said about rationale of believers. But although we have evidence for theory X, a lot of times (such as the idea that "look, I can see freely observable from my standing position here that the Earth appears to be a flat surface, except when broken by mountains.") our theories, even based on evidence that is substantial and convincing, can be wrong, and later is revised. While there is no evidence for tinker bell, some have found convincing evidence for an 'external being'. Just as the research of one scientist will not convince the entire community en masse, this evidence does not convince all who are aware of it. This is a sticky topic to get into, however.

Suffice to say that I will briefly mention one pitfall and one classification:
1. It is not inherently necessary for a being from some external place (call it another dimension, perhaps) to follow the laws of this universe he/she/it/they purportedly created, or even just interfered with. Therefore, utilizing those laws as a method to discern the individual(s ) is perhaps not the best method of discovery, if any discovery is possible. Instead, tracking failures of the laws might prove more worthwhile, but one must also consider that the 'failures' may not result from external influence but from our lack of understanding - the laws themselves being incorrect or incomplete interpretations of our universe.
2. The classification: Things like faeries and dragons are known to be fiction; that is they were and are still written about by human authors utilizing imagination. One could argue that the various authors of religious texts similarly wrote via imagination, however their goals, for the large part, were to record reality rather than fantasy-as-allegory. Thus the difference is essentially fiction vs. purported non-fiction.

 

[Swabs]

This is purely comedy and shouldn't be taken 100% seriously, but I do think he makes some pretty logical points. Specifically on prayer.

 

[noble savage]

How would you explain dark energy? Some things are not yet known in science. Moreover, that knowledge that we "already possess" was acquired at some point through discovery, belief, and acceptance.

Dark Energy was originally a constant fitted in Einsteins Field Equations to balance out the expanding and dynamic universe they predicted. Because the idea of an expanding universe was not observed (Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory was the most accepted idea at the time), it was added to balance this outcome. The term and acceptance of Dark Energy was first used about 30 years ago when it was observed that evidence for the big bang (Background radiation, red shift in galaxies etc) existed. It could be argued that initially Dark Energy was just belief, but it, again, was just a natural outcome of what was observed. Not much to add or anything, I just find Dark matter/energy fascinating to talk about.

Chris: If you were God, and you were trying to convince people of something that you know for certain is true, but they ignore you or believe other lies, wouldn't you get frustrated too?

If I was a god who created a universe, my honest answer is this: If I wanted to convince a group of beings that I existed, I would do something drastic, like split mountains in half. No ambiguity whatsoever.

However, that is if I would even care about the beings in the first place (Well on the basis of interacting with them. I wouldn't. I would just observe.) I would spend my time observing all of the more fascinating things in my universe. Black holes, worm holes, quasars etc. Then again, that's just my personality etched into an omniscient being.

Suffice to say that I will briefly mention one pitfall and one classification:
1. It is not inherently necessary for a being from some external place (call it another dimension, perhaps) to follow the laws of this universe he/she/it/they purportedly created, or even just interfered with. Therefore, utilizing those laws as a method to discern the individual(s ) is perhaps not the best method of discovery, if any discovery is possible. Instead, tracking failures of the laws might prove more worthwhile, but one must also consider that the 'failures' may not result from external influence but from our lack of understanding - the laws themselves being incorrect or incomplete interpretations of our universe.

Yeah, I agree. As I have said before, our knowledge is still very primitive. I can only use our understanding of the universe, in this argument, to a certain extent. At least until we have a unified theory (Or something similar) which can literally explain every aspect of our universe.

2. The classification: Things like faeries and dragons are known to be fiction; that is they were and are still written about by human authors utilizing imagination. One could argue that the various authors of religious texts similarly wrote via imagination, however their goals, for the large part, were to record reality rather than fantasy-as-allegory. Thus the difference is essentially fiction vs. purported non-fiction.

Well, here's the thing. Couldn't it also be argued that the god of the bible is analogous to a fairy? If the authors of the 66 books of bible where using their imagination on some aspects of the bible, who is to say they didn't use it on the god aspects of it?

 

[noble savage]

This is purely comedy and shouldn't be taken 100% seriously, but I do think he makes some pretty logical points. Specifically on prayer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Every time I watch that video (I have seen it a lot!) and he gets to the part about church's needing more money, I think of Mike Murdock closing his eyes and saying:

"All I ask for is $68. Sow a seed, sow a seed and expect a harvest, expect....a...harvest."

You have to at least respect someone who is upfront about their intentions. Hahaha

 

[Phanto]

Oh wow I'm gonna send 58 dollars to that guy right away. Jesus saves! with money.

 

[noble savage]

Oh wow I'm gonna send 58 dollars to that guy right away. Jesus saves! with money.

Expect a harvest!

 

[Kenneth R.]

If I was a god who created a universe, my honest answer is this: If I wanted to convince a group of beings that I existed, I would do something drastic, like split mountains in half. No ambiguity whatsoever.

However, that is if I would even care about the beings in the first place (Well on the basis of interacting with them. I wouldn't. I would just observe.) I would spend my time observing all of the more fascinating things in my universe. Black holes, worm holes, quasars etc. Then again, that's just my personality etched into an omniscient being.

Well, here's the thing. Couldn't it also be argued that the god of the bible is analogous to a fairy? If the authors of the 66 books of bible where using their imagination on some aspects of the bible, who is to say they didn't use it on the god aspects of it?

On the first two paragraphs:
If you take a look at the bible (or any religious text, I'm not arguing solely as a Christian here) there are passages where the deity in question did demonstrate physical power like the tearing-of-mountains. For the Christians, the people (circa Moses) flipped out and said wow we don't want to interface with that thing directly! And Moses went and told God that, and God said "fine, have it your way."
And if you were God, wouldn't the interesting things to observe be those things over which you have less than complete control? (By choice that is, since you could interfere at any time you want anywhere.) Galactic phenomena, while immensely fascinating I would agree, are not thinking, living creatures. They always behave by the rules set out by the universe for them to obey. We, while obeying universal law, often defy logic and rationality. This makes humanity... interesting.

On the last paragraph: Given the meticulous data concerning events such as census-taking, tax records, genealogy, war and national borders, it seems evident that elements of religious texts are not made up. You could argue that realistic fiction also uses a historical background to introduce fantastic characters. This is where I said the topic gets sticky. It seems clear from the manner of writing that the majority of these texts are meant to be nonfiction. This isn't verifiable in the strictest sense, but the divergence of these passages making up the majority, and the minority of those with an obvious storytime tone "once there was a man, etc." seems to indicate that the former are to be understood as true while the latter merely allegory, adapted history, or tools to explain concepts.

The last thing a church needs is money.

 

[noble savage]

On the first two paragraphs:
If you take a look at the bible (or any religious text, I'm not arguing solely as a Christian here) there are passages where the deity in question did demonstrate physical power like the tearing-of-mountains. For the Christians, the people (circa Moses) flipped out and said wow we don't want to interface with that thing directly! And Moses went and told God that, and God said "fine, have it your way."

I'm familiar with that story. However, I still think it leaves a huge amount of ambiguity as to whether or not this event even happened. We are talking about a time when people still thought the Earth was flat and sea monsters roamed the oceans. Is it not possible this story is true in the sense of say, a meteor shower or comet getting construed and then later interpreted as a divine act in the bible? I would raise a speculative eyebrow to anyone person or group of people who claim such an event. Much in the same way I would to a person or group who claim to have been abducted by aliens. I think events like the ones described above rely too much on a single persons experience to be accurate. Now, if this where to happen over a modern, major city with millions of people as witness, I would change my position.

And if you were God, wouldn't the interesting things to observe be those things over which you have less than complete control? (By choice that is, since you could interfere at any time you want anywhere.) Galactic phenomena, while immensely fascinating I would agree, are not thinking, living creatures. They always behave by the rules set out by the universe for them to obey. We, while obeying universal law, often defy logic and rationality. This makes humanity... interesting.

Yeah, I definitely agree. However, as I said my interpretation of the question was how I would react in such a situation. Even as an omniscient deity I would probably still be introverted enough to not talk to people regardless how interesting they are.

On the last paragraph: Given the meticulous data concerning events such as census-taking, tax records, genealogy, war and national borders, it seems evident that elements of religious texts are not made up. You could argue that realistic fiction also uses a historical background to introduce fantastic characters. This is where I said the topic gets sticky. It seems clear from the manner of writing that the majority of these texts are meant to be nonfiction. This isn't verifiable in the strictest sense, but the divergence of these passages making up the majority, and the minority of those with an obvious storytime tone "once there was a man, etc." seems to indicate that the former are to be understood as true while the latter merely allegory, adapted history, or tools to explain concepts.

I know there are some aspects of the bible that use events that unfolded at the period in which it was written. Which makes perfect sense. I am, however, not an expert in this area. I would think it could get tough trying to sort through what exactly has historical and factual merit and what doesn't.

 

[Earth Breather]

if I could vote, I wouldn't. All the candidates are pure shit in my opinion and I don't want any of them in office. Unfortunately it's gonna happen anyway.



Cthulhu for president.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I'm familiar with that story. However, I still think it leaves a huge amount of ambiguity as to whether or not this event even happened. We are talking about a time when people still thought the Earth was flat and sea monsters roamed the oceans. Is it not possible this story is true in the sense of say, a meteor shower or comet getting construed and then later interpreted as a divine act in the bible? I would raise a speculative eyebrow to anyone person or group of people who claim such an event. Much in the same way I would to a person or group who claim to have been abducted by aliens. I think events like the ones described above rely too much on a single persons experience to be accurate. Now, if this where to happen over a modern, major city with millions of people as witness, I would change my position.

Well, the only difference that would make you change your position is that this event purportedly happened outside your lifespan. Many people were accounted of being witness. Furthermore, the Earth is not described as a flat square. In terms of volcanic activity or meteor/comet situations, since those are described in other passages, I am inclined to believe that the people were aware of such things and distinguished between them and this event.

I know there are some aspects of the bible that use events that unfolded at the period in which it was written. Which makes perfect sense. I am, however, not an expert in this area. I would think it could get tough trying to sort through what exactly has historical and factual merit and what doesn't.

Absolutely. It is the topic of debate for many centuries, and is still ongoing.

 

[fullnelson]

1. Ethics and science are seperate things. The former can be applied to the latter, but it is not inherent. Like you initially stated, science is merely a method.

I know. My phrasing was somewhat ambiguous, but I meant experiments that society deems inappropriate can be regulated.

2. However, since science is almost always inductive, a certain measure of belief is necessary to come to any conclusion. In that respect, it is like religion.

I don't think this is right. Not every belief is congruent. I believe I will wake up tomorrow morning. That belief is taken from thousands of days where the event has consistently occurred and is likely to happen again because I'm young, healthy, and live in a stable area. That belief is more sound than if I read the Book of Mormon and decided to believe that Joseph Smith really was a prophet.

3. Conversely, you state that "corrupted" belief taken from the same source is just as valid as other belief. I disagree on the basis that in the context of the whole, it is contradictory. Thus its identification as corrupted.

I see. Too bad it doesn't work this way in practice.

4. Now you're just setting up a straw man. As stated in 1-3, just as in science we cannot conclude that X causes Y without evidence, one should not believe any information, regardless of source, without rational evidence. This evidence does exist for many various religous texts, typically in the form of archealogical discovery. Many of these historical and scientific records agree with events pinpointed in religious text. In such a way, we can validate that X event is true. Some make the mistake of attempting to validate or invalidate the entire book based on X event.

So? You're telling me that some events in religious stories may be true. I don't doubt that. There is archaeological evidence of a large flood thousands of years ago. Does that also mean that it is likely that Noah and his family were the only human beings to survive and then repopulated the Earth?

5. Your final accusation that religious text is ignorant of disease and basic physics is again an overgeneralization. Many religious texts contain strict passages about sexual conduct, behaviour around dead bodies, and cleanliness. They may not have been aware of the microscopic organisms that cause disease, but they understood the effect and how to combat it.

I don't see how this point applies either. In context, my point was that there is no information about nature in religious texts that would have been unknown to the people living in the time. Behavior around dead bodies and the like was not uncommon knowledge. That can be seen in nonreligious texts like Thucydides.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I don't think this is right. Not every belief is congruent. I believe I will wake up tomorrow morning. That belief is taken from thousands of days where the event has consistently occurred and is likely to happen again because I'm young, healthy, and live in a stable area. That belief is more sound than if I read the Book of Mormon and decided to believe that Joseph Smith really was a prophet.

suppose you die in your sleep. The point was that belief is not certainty, and most scientific hypotheses are based on exactly this sort of testing and conclusion, but are nevertheless by whatever percentage uncertain.

I see. Too bad it doesn't work this way in practice.

Certainly it does. We have identified many erroneous beliefs just in this thread.

So? You're telling me that some events in religious stories may be true. I don't doubt that. There is archaeological evidence of a large flood thousands of years ago. Does that also mean that it is likely that Noah and his family were the only human beings to survive and then repopulated the Earth?

Read my post more carefully. You'll note I said: Some make the mistake of attempting to validate or invalidate the entire book based on X event. On a smaller scale, you just did that.

I don't see how this point applies either. In context, my point was that there is no information about nature in religious texts that would have been unknown to the people living in the time. Behavior around dead bodies and the like was not uncommon knowledge. That can be seen in nonreligious texts like Thucydides.

The point being that these people, although primitive, were not stupid. Nor were they so advanced as to understand our current science. It would be lost on them. When you speak to the farmer, you speak of farm things to be understood. When you speak to the musician, speak of music. In this way, using allegory to describe a concept in the familiar world they're interested in, you are more effective.

 

[fullnelson]

suppose you die in your sleep. The point was that belief is not certainty, and most scientific hypotheses are based on exactly this sort of testing and conclusion, but are nevertheless by whatever percentage uncertain.

Read my post more carefully. You'll note I said: Some make the mistake of attempting to validate or invalidate the entire book based on X event. On a smaller scale, you just did that.

On your repeated point in a "smaller scale", you did the exact same thing: "This evidence does exist for many various religous texts, typically in the form of archealogical discovery. Many of these historical and scientific records agree with events pinpointed in religious text. In such a way, we can validate that X event is true." Then you go on to give your very good point.

But I think there is a problem with a book maintained as true when there are numerous events which don't match up with scientific and historical records as well, and those events contain fantastical occurrences that have never been equaled in any observed setting. If you would like to accept any untestable statement because inductive reasoning is not proof, then by all means do it. We can argue the nuances of belief and the significance of probabilities. For me personally, it is better to reject unsound claims than give equal treatment to all positions of all religions (or paranormal, astrological, new age, and etc.).

 

[Kenneth R.]

I'm curious which events you find that don't match up with history. Not, obviously, something like a burning bush incident. We can't verify that. I'm talking about cases that you have direct contradiction, not lack of explanation. I think I know which you will mention but I'm curious anyway.

About evidence and truth, touche.

 

[fullnelson]

Yeah, I'm sure you know the arguments concerning the Bible better than I do. I'm not familiar with any religion to the degree where I could make any good arguments on my own behalf based on text. I also don't have any personal intrigue with Christianity over others to research this myself, but I have heard things in passing over the years. I remember the Census of Quirinius, order of creations in Genesis, and times when the sun was halted or darkened all over the Earth and no record of it was found anywhere. I watched a show about Exodus a while back. Here's an article about it. I think that how the accounts of Jesus's life aren't first-hand make them questionable, and the arbitrary development of which books were included in the New Testament make the canon more difficult to accept.

But it's really other factors that turn me off rather than any historical problem.