Who seriously can believe in bible?

WhiteBoyFunk said:
What you were saying was that merely because something is not proven scientfically does not equate falsity. That's a fact, I am not sure what it is you want me to reply to show that I understand a simple thought.
Click to expand...

which is not metaphoric.

and you seem to be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
 
veil the sky said:
i personally don't believe there is an internal difference between knowledge and belief. knowledge is merely a term imposed by a third party observer who think they know better, or for sure.
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate on this?
 
veil the sky said:
you probably wrote an essay on knowledge as 'justified, true belief' which is the standard undergrad formulation.

i personally don't believe there is an internal difference between knowledge and belief. knowledge is merely a term imposed by a third party observer who think they know better, or for sure.
Click to expand...
This is true if you talk about belief in general sense. But religious belief is in specific category. It is more close to mass hypnosis, and is just one of the usual "robotizations" of mankind when you have something to impose on people and it becomes accepted truth. General belief is very personal, and is based on (always limited) knowledge, and emotional responses on surrounding.
Scientific knowlege is always something that works for everyone, and is replicable, but yes, it is a belief because human perception is subjective and very limited, and every time science goes forward, part of the unscientific belief becomes explained and part of accepted scientific knowledge.

On a subjective, psychological level, belief and knowledge are absolutely the same.
 
cfh said:
At this time when science has proven at least half of the bible wrong, I still keep wondering how someone could pray some fucking "god"..
Click to expand...
Faith.

I am a thoroughgoing atheist, but the answer is Faith.

Science is itself a religion inasmuch as it provides answers to the unknown via suggestion and wondering.

Mind you, I don't equate science to religion, per se; but go read your Zeno and then let me know if your faith in science is still as well grounded as you presently believe.
 
All I have to say is that really universal theory has nothing to do with science, much more mathematics, after all the science of physics is based on the non-science of Mathematics. Also consider that Physics is the basis of chemistry and chemistry itself is the basis of Biology and Geology. Basically I think you shouldn't be argueing science vs. religion more religion vs. Mathematics since science is just a derivative of mathematics anyway. In a similar respect Christianity is derived from the Jewish faith, which in turn was created from the Angel worshiping pagan tribes of the ancient middle east.
 
Well, I prefer salad. Mozart is boring, too many notes, salad tastes better, and is not dead for few centuries. (well at least those I have tasted, but who knows for real) On the other hand, plants are growing faster when you play them Mozart, but does not react when you try to feed them with salad. You also cannot play them sallad, I have tried that with my previous cd player, not good for plants, even worse for cd players.
 
May I suggest that we are looking for the wrong type of 'proof' here? Many speak of proving the Bible or religion as a whole true or untrue by scientific or mathematical processes. But the Bible is a historical document, not an algorithm. Science can't prove that the events that happened in the bible are true just like science can't prove that I played guitar for an hour yesterday. The only proof that needs to be validated, I think, is the historical proof. Was there a guy called Jesus? Did he do what the bible says he did? If the answer we come to is yes, then what are we going to do about it? The only way to test the bible is to see how it stands up to historical scrutiny.

What I'm trying to get at - and i don't know how well I did that - is that if, for example, Jesus returned from the dead, and we could know that historically, then perhaps what he was saying about himself and God was true, perhaps he had the authority to say it. If the historical evidence of his resurrection is dodgy, maybe we rethink that.
 
Grovesy said:
May I suggest that we are looking for the wrong type of 'proof' here? Many speak of proving the Bible or religion as a whole true or untrue by scientific or mathematical processes. But the Bible is a historical document, not an algorithm. Science can't prove that the events that happened in the bible are true just like science can't prove that I played guitar for an hour yesterday. The only proof that needs to be validated, I think, is the historical proof. Was there a guy called Jesus? Did he do what the bible says he did? If the answer we come to is yes, then what are we going to do about it? The only way to test the bible is to see how it stands up to historical scrutiny.

What I'm trying to get at - and i don't know how well I did that - is that if, for example, Jesus returned from the dead, and we could know that historically, then perhaps what he was saying about himself and God was true, perhaps he had the authority to say it. If the historical evidence of his resurrection is dodgy, maybe we rethink that.
Click to expand...
read what i wrote about judeo-christianity on the other threads
 
I think the Bible is extremely interesting .. other than that, I have my suspicions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

4
do you believe in god?
Replies
27
Views
944
Chat
JesusChristPose
J
S
Do we "choose" our beliefs? I think not.
Replies
13
Views
803
The Philosopher
infoterror
I
M
Howcome so many people still believe in God?
Replies
205
Views
7K
The Philosopher
Tongue_Ring
T
NAD
Why do many ultra-religious people NOT believe in alien lifeforms?
Replies
21
Views
485
Chat
NAD
N
Astrum
my interpretation of nondualism as it relates to being able to prove god as fact
Replies
3
Views
1K
The Philosopher
prozak
P
Top Bottom
Back