The Argument for the Accuracy of Scripture

1. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   I was just reading another thread where they were arguing about the ark. How many animals, what kind, etc. Everyone argues about creation versus evolution. Dinosaurs and dragons.
   
   I am curious. I understand the desire of the believer to stand firmly in God's camp, but do you ever feel foolish with the argument you have to put forth? Why do you think reality forces the believer to jump through hoops in order to stand behind  what can appear to be, at times, nonsensical scripture? Is there no middle ground?
   
   Please note that I realize there are many believers who don't argue these points. I'm interested in how the Bible believers and, I guess, fundamental Muslims feel about  having to continually present argument's they can't support with facts.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As far as I can tell, the people putting forward these arguments, actually believe that they are watertight and anyone who doesnt believe it is an idiot.
      
      I just cant get my head round grown adults believing in the flood myth and the ark story.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I've heard reasonable argument's for localized flooding.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Localised floods wouldnt have killed everyone on the planet or covered the highest mountain so that disagrees with the bible account.
            
            Koran talks of local floods. Again I cant see how that would work.
            
            Why would noah need to build an ark. He could just walk to a safe place that wasnt flooded.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Have you read the "epic of gilgamesh"?
            
            Its a believed to be fictional story written bfore the bible. Some guy was instructed to build a big ark in that story too.

            replyreport
   2. 69

      AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is why: the scriptures you feel are "nonsensical" or not seen as "nonsensical" to the believer. And the arguments which believers present ARE, according to the believer,  supported by "facts." Who defines fact and evidence? Well....I've watched tons of people debate about this. It all boils down to perceptions...
      
      The difference is in the perception of what defines fact and what defines something as nonsense and what defines something as evidence; not everyone believes the same about each. Therefore, one person may accept certain criteria for "proof": others will not. A believer might consider a spiritual "vision" etc. etc. as "proof": another will not. It's a matter of perceptions...
      
      No one believes something knowing that it is Unfounded or Nonsensical. We can't honestly believe something we know to be false.
      
      Therefore, in more direct answer to the question, I think Christians don't feel anything about continually presenting arguments they can't support with facts; because, in their minds, they are not doing so. They will not feel that your statement applies to them.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Facts are things that are true. We call many things that are 99.9% likely to be true facts. But we don't call things that are 0.00(ad hominem)% true facts because they are not at all likely to be true.
         
         Facts are objective and based on evidence.
         
         We base our decisions on whether is something a fact or not by the knowledge that we currently possess.
         
         Creationist Christians do not bother with this process, they were told once that the bible was right, and so even if it doesn't make sense to them, or anyone else, it must be right.
         
         That is not the basis of a rational argument. Blindly stating things that happened in the Bible as fact is wrong. There is no likelihood that anything of the sort happened. So why would somebody believe that?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Also, I feel that Christians will definitely feel that the statement applies to them, they are not stupid, they know that what they believe is based on blind faith.
            
            A lot of them simply end up saying "I don't know how to explain it and it doesn't really make sense to me, but I trust in God's will" or "I see your point and it makes sense, but I trust that God is right"
            
            It's lunacy, but in the face of understood facts and logic, people still choose to believe in that antiquated tome.

            replyreport
         2. 69

            AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            How do you determine percentage of likeliness to be true? Personal perception.
            
            Once again, what defines evidence is debated. Facts may be objective; but humans are not. Are we therefore able to objectively conclude what a fact is? We all have our methods of determining something to be fact and they are all subjective.
            
            We base our decisons on whether is something a fact or not by the knowledge that we currently possess. Yes. But this basing of decisions is subjective and personal.
            
            You say there is no likelihood, according to your own criteria for the likelihood of something being true. Another person has their own criteria. So what is the criteria for determining whose criteria is correct? That drags us into many many branches of philosophy.
            
            I don't defend a creationist perspective. I don't defend anyones. I'm merely pointing out the way humans approach concepts of fact and evidence. No argument either way.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Percentages are worked out mathematically (or just guessed at subjectively). For instance, the amounts of times that we've seen wine being converted into water (a complex chemical soup turned into 2 different atoms - H2O) is 0. The amount of theories that we have on how it can be done is 0. The likelihood of it ever happening 0% (0/0=0). The likelihood that it happened 0%.
               
               There it uses a formula, the formula based on real life and things we can measure.
               
               Using a formula on things we can't measure would not really result in fact but assumption, hypothesis or theory, but not scientific theory.
               
               Facts are not based on personal feelings or beliefs, they are based on knowledge, repetition and in-depth speculation.
               
               So I suppose in answer to your question on criteria that is correct, it is by dictionary definition (the dictionaries dictating the definitions of the words we use as the authority over words) that a fact is:
               
               fact  (fkt)
               n.
               1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:
               
               And so by definition a fact must be based on real occurrences. The only way to prove that an occurrence is real is by showing concrete evidence that can be seen or known by the sensory organs with or without the use of aid.
               
               The validity of the Bible's story are not based on anything that can be seen or detected and so by definition are not really facts.
               
               Facts such as testing to see whether hydrogen and oxygen can be made into other atoms (carbon etc.) are observable and as far as anyone know it is not possible.
               
               So the fact is that it is not possible as far as we know.
               
               So when that is used in argument, it is based on something, our observed and seeable research. It occurred in real life. We can measure it not happening.
               
               But a story in a book should not be taken to be a fact because it is not based on anything observable
               
               I hope this answers your question

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  “Percentages are worked out mathematically (or just guessed at subjectively). For instance, the amounts of times that we've seen wine being converted into water (a complex chemical soup turned into 2 different atoms - H2O) is 0. The amount of theories that we have on how it can be done is 0. The likelihood of it ever happening 0% (0/0=0). The likelihood that it happened 0%. “
                  
                  Exactly. Percentages are based on likelihoods. But how does one determine likelihood? Because it as not been done? Because there is no existing theory? Is that really a good determination for likelihood? Some disagree.
                  
                  “There it uses a formula, the formula based on real life and things we can measure.”
                  Things we can measure, yes. But: is it reasonable to assume that only those such things as perceived with our senses (i.e. conducting a chemical experiment, etc.) are adequate to determine likelihood and evidence.
                  
                  “Using a formula on things we can't measure would not really result in fact but assumption, hypothesis or theory, but not scientific theory.”
                  
                  That’s because, as human beings, we are limited in our perceptions. We cannot do experiments, etc. on that which cannot be measured or perceived by our human senses. That would be absurd. But, again, my argument is: why is it that we, as humans, think that our human species’ perceptions are adequate for understanding all forms of the universe? It seems a little egotistical. Who is to say that scientific theory is more accurate in painting an accurate picture of our entire universe? That is to limit the entire truth about the universe to being known to our own human species’ perceptions and sensory organs.
                  
                  “Facts are not based on personal feelings or beliefs, they are based on knowledge, repetition and in-depth speculation.”
                  
                  In order for the human to come to the realization that something is fact, they must use their minds in order to do so. My point is: if there is such a thing as truth, or fact, how do we know that our method of perceiving something as “fact” is actually objective and accurate? We can’t. We can’t alientate ourselves from the minds doing the perceiving. We cannot alientate our subjective human minds in the processing of information our minds attain through experimentation. There are many philosophers who would disagree that facts are based on knowledge, repetition, and in-depth speculation. Facts are facts whether they are tested and speculated about or not.
                  
                  “So I suppose in answer to your question on criteria that is correct, it is by dictionary definition (the dictionaries dictating the definitions of the words we use as the authority over words) that a fact is:
                  
                  fact  (fkt)
                  n.
                  1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences:
                  
                  And so by definition a fact must be based on real occurrences. The only way to prove that an occurrence is real is by showing concrete evidence that can be seen or known by the sensory organs with or without the use of aid.”
                  
                  Again, that limits the definition of evidence of existence to that which we can experience through our sensory organs and perceptions. Who is to say that is accurate? Again, there are many other philosophical “theories”…
                  
                  “The validity of the Bible's story are not based on anything that can be seen or detected and so by definition are not really facts.”
                  
                  Some claim visions; some claim a feeling inside of them; some claim miraculous healings, etc. to back up their claims. Would this not be detectable and seen evidence? Some say yes, some say no. Again, it boils down to how you define evidence and that is based on perception. Who defines what is considered acceptable evidence? Evidence as based on that which we can see and measure still seems somewhat egotistical and assumes the totality of perception necessary for understanding ultimate truth as being contained in our person…
                  
                  “Facts such as testing to see whether hydrogen and oxygen can be made into other atoms (carbon etc.) are observable and as far as anyone know it is not possible.
                  So the fact is that it is not possible as far as we know. “
                  
                  Yes, but that condition doesn’t prove it as being a fact...it proves we can't do it….
                  
                  “So when that is used in argument, it is based on something, our observed and seeable research. It occurred in real life. We can measure it not happening.”
                    But a story in a book should not be taken to be a fact because it is not based on anything observable .”
                    Again, I don't think that the condition of being unobservable necessarily makes it non-existent. That is to say that if we cannot obsesrve it through human senses, it must not exist; human senses are just that: human senses. How do we know they are the only possible perceptors?
                    No, a story in a book should not.  If someone sees it as truth and verifying itself and predicting accurate prophecies as evidence of truth, then it would be more than a story to them. Again, for those who have had visions, those who have miraculous healings, those who say they can predict the future given to them by angels in dreams, etc. consider their beliefs as verifiable according to things they can test and see. For example: say someone consistently has dreams where they are told by God that certain things will happen. In each and every case, it turns out to be true… etc. etc…
                  
                  Anywho...Thanks for the discussion 

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     "is it reasonable to assume that only those such things as perceived with our senses (i.e. conducting a chemical experiment, etc.) are adequate to determine likelihood and evidence" Yes.
                     
                     Otherwise you are acting differently on the basis of something that isn't there?
                     
                     "my argument is: why is it that we, as humans, think that our human species’ perceptions are adequate for understanding all forms of the universe? It seems a little egotistical. Who is to say that scientific theory is more accurate in painting an accurate picture of our entire universe? That is to limit the entire truth about the universe to being known to our own human species’ perceptions and sensory organs. "
                     
                     No that's a false conclusion, it has nothing to do with other organisms. Where in it does it say that "ONLY humans can understand things with ONLY their sensory organs?" It doesn't. Please keep StrawMan out of this.
                     
                     What it means is, we should only trust what we know is there, otherwise we are basing decisions on something that we don't even know is there?
                     
                     How in any sense is that rational?
                     
                     Please address this point as it's the most important one. You didn't address it last time because you went off track and attacked an argument I never made.
                     
                     " There are many philosophers who would disagree that facts are based on knowledge, repetition, and in-depth speculation. Facts are facts whether they are tested and speculated about or not. "
                     
                     Facts are based on things that have occurred. This must be proven first in order to be a fact. Nothing about perception of the human mind etc. That is the dictionary definition of what a fact is. We derive our meanings of words from the dictionaries and that is how we humans function. If you do not use a dictionary for your definitions of words and choose to give me your own definitions, please inform me of what you mean for every single last word that you use in your response, so I know what you are trying to say.
                     
                     "Some claim visions; some claim a feeling inside of them; some claim miraculous healings, etc. to back up their claims. Would this not be detectable and seen evidence?"
                     
                     By dictionary definition, feeling inside of them and miraculous healing if not quantifiable and observable should not be used in the backing up of a "fact".
                     
                     "Yes, but that condition doesn’t prove it as being a fact...it proves we can't do it…."
                     
                     Yes but it would be ludicrous to base our decision on what we don't know rather than what we do know. That is like me saying to you It is a fact that  you are a rhinoceros because I don't know that you're not. The basis that I don't know something is no evidence for anything. We use the information that we currently possess to make facts. If you use information that we don't currently possess and call it a fact then you are lying. As in the Bible.
                     
                     "human senses are just that: human senses. How do we know they are the only possible perceptors?"
                     
                     Once again you are basing an argument on something you don't know? You do not make facts from nothing. You cannot say 'it does exist because we don't know it does exist". That's not fact.
                     
                     "If someone sees it as truth" what? I see Harry Potter books as truth. He MUST be real, it's a FACT now. I don't understand your point.
                     
                     " For example: say someone consistently has dreams where they are told by God that certain things will happen. In each and every case, it turns out to be true… etc. etc…"
                     
                     Yeah except that's never happened... And even if it did we would just say that it is a lie. Because there is no evidence to support how such a thing happened. What is more likely is that the person was insane or mentally incapable. Or trying to get some publicity/money.
                     
                     You seem to not take the dictionary definition of the word "fact". That is going to be a problem for you in arguing anything with anyone because humanity has survived by using a fairly stationary use of words. Languages evolve yes, but  dictionaries evolve with them so that we know what the hell is going on.
                     
                     You must understand that a fact cannot be based on somebody else telling you something happened to them, it's not a fact. It's not something we can all observe.
                     
                     And the most important argument against yours is, when has anybody ever had a message from God, or a feeling inside of them, telling them to be part of a specific, one out of 40,000+ christian sects of religion Christian.
                     
                     How do you know that feeling inside of you is not the curry you had last night? How do you know that miracle healing can't be explained by simple science? You don't KNOW any of these things. You just link them to God and say it's fact. It's not. By any standard.
                     
                     If there were facts for religion, everyone would adhere to it, because the punishment for not adhering to it is eternal damnation. There is no such punishment for not adhering to atheism or agnosticism or deism, so ignorant people, even if they see that there are facts supporting these religions will still blindly follow their religions in stupor.
                     
                     Facts apply to everyone, they are universal or at least the majority (some people are brain dead/comatose). The majority of people do not claim to have amazing miracles happening in their lives and so cannot relate to these so called "facts" that refer to these feelings.
                     
                     Facts based on science/math can be related to everyone because what is being described with it is the world in which we live in with numbers and words, data and charts, which everyone can see and try to understand.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        If you do believe that it is adequate to determine likelihood and evidence, then so be it. I simply find the belief egotistical and not very logical.
                        Again, it's about how each person perceives life and reality...
                        
                        I am acting differently on the basis of nothing? For you, it's nothing. For me, it's something. Opinion difference. You have a right to think whatever you like.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           But you yourself said specifically that it is rational to act upon something that isn't detectable? If there are no remnants of it, no reason to believe in it, as far as we are concerned it is nothing.
                           
                           By very definition what you are describing is nothing?
                           
                           So for me, it's nothing. And for you, it's still nothing.
                           
                           How can it be "something"? Prove to me that it exists? You can't because it has no detectability!
                           
                           And you too have a right to think whatever you like, though right you are not.

                           replyreport
                           1. 69

                              AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              By your definition, what I am describing is nothing.
                              
                              I don't have to prove something exists in order for it to be true. I am not attempting to prove the existence of anything.

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 haha I think we have each other misunderstood here too, this was mainly concerning things that cannot be detected not that which has not yet been detected.
                                 
                                 That is to say, it refers to the Abrahamic God, which is described in the texts as undetectable (being omnipotent, or invisible, or out of this universe), so even if he is real, we would never be able to prove it by definition.
                                 
                                 I'm not saying that things currently that we can't detect aren't real!. Just things that can't be detected (not now, but as in, ever). Otherwise before we detected EM radiation, oxygen (and every atom for that matter) and electricity, according to me they would have never existed!
                                 
                                 The underlying point being that people are changing their behaviour on something they themselves believe to be never physically observable, which is against the definition of truth that I found.
                                 
                                 But none of that matters now because I got your original argument wrong (y)
                                 
                                 =S
                                 
                                 Philanthropy,

                                 replyreport
                     2. 69

                        AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        “No that's a false conclusion, it has nothing to do with other organisms. Where in it does it say that "ONLY humans can understand things with ONLY their sensory organs?" It doesn't. Please keep StrawMan out of this.What it means is, we should only trust what we know is there, otherwise we are basing decisions on something that we don't even know is there? How in any sense is that rational?Please address this point as it's the most important one. You didn't address it last time because you went off track and attacked an argument I never made.”
                        I did address it. I’ve been addressing it this entire time.  I never suggested we should base decisions on something that we don’t even know is there. I’m saying that us not knowing it is there, does not mean it doesn’t. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, so if I was unclear, I apologize and I will try to express myself more clearly. I was not trying to deviate from the topic. I thought I was addressing something you said which you obviously did not mean.
                           Scientific theory is based on experimentation and drawing conclusions based on what we are able to perceive with our senses. My point was to ask: is this a realiable method? Do we know? I was addressing the issue at hand but you didn’t understand my application. So strawman doesn’t apply. Let me try to clear this up: I thought you were saying that scientific theory was the only acceptable method of determining something as fact or not. (Unless of course I misunderstood) It does not say ONLY humans can understand things with ONLY their sensory organs. I never said it did. I was saying that the scientific method relies on determining fact and falsity through experimentation with discernible things. If it is not discernible to us, it is dismissed as false. In which case it inevitably puts the human mind in the rather lofty position of attempting to determine truth based on that which we can perceive. I was expressing doubt as to this view of determining the existence of something. Perhaps I misunderstood your reference to scientific theory.  Your entire discussion seemed to be based on the idea of if I couldn’t prove it to you in a way that was discernible to your senses, you would not believe it existed. I thought your reference to scientific theory was that of saying it was the only acceptable kind. I probably confused the hell out of both of us, because I got very confused but I hope I cleared up the confusion. At least minorly. Lol.
                        
                        "Facts are based on things that have occurred. This must be proven first in order to be a fact. Nothing about perception of the human mind etc. That is the dictionary definition of what a fact is. We derive our meanings of words from the dictionaries and that is how we humans function. If you do not use a dictionary for your definitions of words and choose to give me your own definitions, please inform me of what you mean for every single last word that you use in your response, so I know what you are trying to say.”
                        
                        First of all, We get our words from meanings, not meanings from words. We had meanings and words long before dictionaries. Dictionaries come from crazy people who are willing to compile it all.
                        Dictionary definition of “fact”: “something that actually exists; reality; truth”
                        How was my definition different from this?
                          This is getting into semantics so I’m not really going to go into depth about this. A fact is a fact. It doesn’t have to be proven in order for it to be a fact. According to the above dictionary definition, fact is the same as truth. So isn’t is logical to assume that a truth is true whether or not we are aware of it? 
                          As far as perception of the human mind, you’re missing my point. You use your mind in gathering information and coming up with facts. I was speaking in reference to the human way of understanding and determining what is fact and evidence. You are always using your mind and your perceptions when you do so. That was the application.
                        
                        “By dictionary definition, feeling inside of them and miraculous healing if not quantifiable and observable should not be used in the backing up of a "fact". “
                        I’m pretty sure the dictionary didn’t mention what should be considered quantifiable and observable and what should be reliable for backing up fact. That is left up to people like you and me to debate lol. Unless we’re using really different dictionaries. . Is A vision observable?  Is A feeling feelable? That is my point. What you consider observable and perceptible and acceptable for evidence, (which is what I assume you meant by ‘backing up fact’) is going to differ based on how you perceive evidence and what constitutes something as evidence.
                        
                        
                        Yes but it would be ludicrous to base our decision on what we don't know rather than what we do know. That is like me saying to you It is a fact that  you are a rhinoceros because I don't know that you're not. The basis that I don't know something is no evidence for anything. We use the information that we currently possess to make facts. If you use information that we don't currently possess and call it a fact then you are lying. As in the Bible."
                        
                        I didn’t say we should MAKE A DECISION based on what we don’t “know” or “perceive.” I said we should simply be careful with assuming the truth about something simply because we are unable to perceive it.As I said, I am not arguing FOR the existence of ANYTHING. In other words, I’m questioning the idea that our human senses are so reliable in determining truth, or fact. I equate fact to “truth.” Perhaps that is the reason of disagreement between us. I am simply making a statement about the way people approach evidence and fact.
                        
                        “Once again you are basing an argument on something you don't know? You do not make facts from nothing. You cannot say 'it does exist because we don't know it does exist". That's not fact.”
                        
                        I think you don’t even know what my argument is. I never said anything existed. I’m not arguing for the existence of anything. You said I was. I am not.
                        
                        "If someone sees it as truth" what? I see Harry Potter books as truth. He MUST be real, it's a FACT now. I don't understand your point."
                        
                        You did not understand what I was saying.
                        Your argument was that a book of stories should not be used to back up fact. My argument was that you are basing your own argument on the assumption that the Bible is a book of stories, which is an assumption which would only come from the position which you were holding in the first place.  So, again, no a book of stories should not back up fact. But if you see it not as a book of stories but as that of a record of events, that might be used to back up fact. Or be evidence of a fact. The only way that someone will see it as a record of events is if they believe it to begin with. My point is this: based on what has happened to people in their lives, they feel that the Bible is truth. They have, consciously or not, determined that, according to the totality of all that has happened to them and using their own criteria for “evidence”, that the Bible is indeed true. Bottom line: people are going to have different criteria for what counts as evidence. The criteria for evidence is not unanimously agreed upon. There are many branches of philosophy which deal with this concept extensively.
                        
                        “Yeah except that's never happened... And even if it did we would just say that it is a lie. Because there is no evidence to support how such a thing happened. What is more likely is that the person was insane or mentally incapable. Or trying to get some publicity/money. “
                        
                        Yes that has happened. And even if it did you would just say it is a lie? So if someone accurately predicts events which happen in others’ or their own lives, before it happens, then that person is insane? I find it interesting that someone would be called insane or mentally incapable who was able to accurately predict future events in detail. That still doesn’t explain how they know. “There is no evidence to support how such a thing happened”: how what happened? The dream? The event? A person could journal that they had a dream that such and such specific events were going to happen, shown to them by God, and then it could happen. The event obviously needs no evidence because it would be observable by all. Again, you are addressing me as if I’m arguing for the existence of a God. I never said that. I never intended to. I never claimed to be a believer and I am not arguing for anything’s existence. I am arguing for a more openminded approach to the method of determining what is fact and what is evidence.
                        
                        "You seem to not take the dictionary definition of the word "fact". That is going to be a problem for you in arguing anything with anyone because humanity has survived by using a fairly stationary use of words. Languages evolve yes, but  dictionaries evolve with them so that we know what the hell is going on."
                        
                        Again, the definition I am using of fact is in complete agreement with the dictionary I consulted. I don’t see where the problem is.
                        
                        “You must understand that a fact cannot be based on somebody else telling you something happened to them, it's not a fact. It's not something we can all observe.”
                        I never said it could be. You are putting statements in my mouth I never said.
                        
                        “And the most important argument against yours is, when has anybody ever had a message from God, or a feeling inside of them, telling them to be part of a specific, one out of 40,000+ christian sects of religion Christian. “
                        Again, you made up what you think my argument is. My argument is NOT about saying God exists. It is to take a different approach  to how we determine what is fact and what is evidence: that being, that it is based on perceptions. You are using my statements in your own applications.
                        
                        “How do you know that feeling inside of you is not the curry you had last night? How do you know that miracle healing can't be explained by simple science? You don't KNOW any of these things. You just link them to God and say it's fact. It's not. By any standard. “
                        
                        For the last time, I didn’t say it was. I didn’t link it to God. And it could be from the curry I had last night. I said that to THAT PERSON, it is considered evidence. I was using those as examples of my argument in this particular case which was NOT that we SHOULD base decisions on things we cannot experience, but that each person’s perception as what qualifies as evidence, is different and subjective. To THEM, it is a discernible experience which has validity. Please stop saying that I’m making arguments which I am NOT.
                        
                        “If there were facts for religion, everyone would adhere to it, because the punishment for not adhering to it is eternal damnation. There is no such punishment for not adhering to atheism or agnosticism or deism, so ignorant people, even if they see that there are facts supporting these religions will still blindly follow their religions in stupor. Facts apply to everyone, they are universal or at least the majority (some people are brain dead/comatose). The majority of people do not claim to have amazing miracles happening in their lives and so cannot relate to these so called "facts" that refer to these feelings.Facts based on science/math can be related to everyone because what is being described with it is the world in which we live in with numbers and words, data and charts, which everyone can see and try to understand.”
                        
                        I’m not sure I understand how this applies to anything we just talked about….maybe I am misunderstanding your application or what you are trying to say, so I would rather not respond until I understand you clearly, to avoid confusion. I’m not sure what your point is. If it is that we should not base fact on a small number of miraculous events which happened to a certain individual, and apply it to everyone, then you are right. I never claimed we should. I simply said that, that person will perceive those things as evidence. Maybe what you are saying is clear and I’m getting overly tired as I’ve been writing for like an hour….
                        
                        I am beginning to feel that you are making certain assumptions about my argument, which I am not making; and that most of the time I am telling you that you misunderstood completely the point of what I was saying or the argument I was trying to make. If I was unclear, then I am at fault. I hope this clears things up. I don’t like heated or hateful debates so I am not attempting to be nasty in any way whatsoever. Thanks for the time in discussing this.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           "I did address it. I’ve been addressing it this entire time.  I never suggested we should base decisions on something that we don’t even know is there. I’m saying that us not knowing it is there, does not mean it doesn’t."
                           
                           If you are not suggesting we should base decisions on something that we don't know is there, then how can you back religious "facts"? These facts after all are based on God, something we do not even know is there and have no way of detecting.
                           
                           Also, and I think this is the foundation of our dispute:
                           
                           " But if you see it not as a book of stories but as that of a record of events, that might be used to back up fact."
                           There is no evidence for taking is a record of events (except for in the book itself), but there is endless evidence for it not being accurate.
                           
                           The Earth is 6000 years and evolution is wrong? That doesn't sound like a record of events at all.
                           
                           But you are saying that when a religious person says "the Earth IS 6000 years old and evolution IS wrong" it is a fact for them?
                           
                           No, it is based on a book which has no basis itself.
                           
                           I'm sorry, I don't have much time right now so I'm just skim reading.
                           
                           The only other conflict I found was "I said that to THAT PERSON, it is considered evidence" concerning thinking that a feeling inside of you, or miracles. Is it evidence? Evidence has to have basis for it too? Unless that person KNOWS that it is the CHRISTIAN god of one of the precise 40,000+ SECTS of Christianity, then it's not evidence towards that God, but evidence perhaps, towards a deity, not religion and certainly not specifics of religious texts such as say evolution or the arc.
                           
                           If i've missed anything please just refer me to it quickly and i'll process as best I can.
                           
                           No, no need for nastiness or vehement behaviour, though sometimes it comes across that way what with the only way of EMPHASISING being the seemingly AGGRESSIVE capitalising of words
                           
                           But those accustomed to hub forums know that it's not meant to be so!

                           replyreport
                           1. 69

                              AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              hmmm I think that Arguing at this point is pointless because you're saying that I said things, which I never said. I never said the earth being 6000 years old is a fact for them. I'm not trying to back religious facts, as you say I did. I'm not attempting to give evidence of a Christian God, as you said I did. We're not discussing the same thing anymore. my whole point here was not to argue God's existence.

                              replyreport
                           2. 69

                              AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Ok, I see where you got the idea that I was saying people have personal facts. I kind of blew up at you and EmileR on the other post below this. And I'm sorry. I was getting frustrated with being misunderstood. That is one thing I want to clarify. I was attempting to say that i wasn't saying it was an actual fact, or that facts are personal, etc. I was trying to explain the difference psycholgically in what people perceieve as evidence and what  qualifies as evidence and what they ACCEPT as a fact. Not what is a fact. Idk if that clarifies anything and I'm starting to get braindead anyway... lol

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hahaha upon reading your original post it's quite clear to me that I completely misinterpreted what you were saying from the word go. I can only apologise.
                                 
                                 "The difference is in the perception of what defines fact and what defines something as nonsense and what defines something as evidence; not everyone believes the same about each. Therefore, one person may accept certain criteria for "proof": others will not. "
                                 
                                 The use of quoting "proof" shows caution thrown and then your conclusion is that the Christians who don't realise they're wrong won't realise they're wrong and won't realise this post is aimed at them?
                                 
                                 I agree with that haha, but only concerning the hard - ingrained Christians, not the borderline ones (most of them) which are neither learned in science nor religion that attempt to tackle big questions like evolution etc.
                                 
                                 Sorry for the misunderstanding! I can only mitigate myself with the idea that I was skim reading, and missed out the nuances, but it's still not quite acceptable.
                                 
                                 Sorry anyway :S
                                 
                                 Philanthropy,

                                 replyreport
                              2. 83

                                 Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hahaha upon reading your original post it's quite clear to me that I completely misinterpreted what you were saying from the word go. I can only apologise.
                                 
                                 "The difference is in the perception of what defines fact and what defines something as nonsense and what defines something as evidence; not everyone believes the same about each. Therefore, one person may accept certain criteria for "proof": others will not. "
                                 
                                 The use of quoting "proof" shows caution thrown and then your conclusion is that the Christians who don't realise they're wrong won't realise they're wrong and won't realise this post is aimed at them?
                                 
                                 I agree with that haha, but only concerning the hard - ingrained Christians, not the borderline ones (most of them) which are neither learned in science nor religion that attempt to tackle big questions like evolution etc.
                                 
                                 Sorry for the misunderstanding! I can only mitigate myself with the idea that I was skim reading, and missed out the nuances, but it's still not quite acceptable.
                                 
                                 Sorry anyway :S
                                 
                                 Philanthropy,

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 69

                                    AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    lol its okay no worries
                                    
                                    yes, that is more the idea I was aiming for, although not exact but you've got the general idea
                                    
                                    Again, no worries...misunderstandings happen. We're cool
                                    
                                    Peace out,
                                    Ashton

                                    replyreport
      2. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I know this will sound rude, but if believers can't understand what a fact is; we've got trouble.
         
         I get belief, but to claim it is fact pushes the envelope.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I think people need to refer to dictionaries more S: Our words have definitions already, it's oh so confusing when people use their own definitions of words, and religious beliefs are by no means fact :S
            
            I also don't believe in "a personal fact" that is true for one person and not the rest of the world -.-

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I've never heard of a personal fact before. That's handy. I guess someone can throw anything out there and expect to be believed because, hey, it's their own little fact.

               replyreport
            2. 69

               AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You are assuming I'm making my own definition of fact becaue neither of you understood my point.
               I was saying that a fact is equivalent to truth. The dictionary I consulted confirmed this. Do you disagree?
               If you think I am coming up with my own definitions, it is because you do not understand the application of what I am saying.
               What I am saying is that a fact, or truth about what is real, may not be discernable to only our senses. That's all I meant. If you took it any other way, you are in error and that is not my fault.
               and btw for the last time. who int he hell said I was a believer?
               My argument had nothing to do with arguing for God's existence.
               I find it funny that you all are going on and on with this idea of "personal fact" when that wasn't even remotely close to what I was even attempting to say. Of course there's no such thing as personal fact. Nothing like being accused of doing something I didn't do and then being ridiculed for it.
               If you want to do that, have fun with it.

               replyreport
            3. 69

               AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               To be honest I'm getting sick of people assuming they understand the application of what I'm saying, completely ignore my assertions otherwise, and do not attempt to understand what I mean and assert that they know what I meant. Before you accuse me and ridicule, it might be a good idea to discuss and make sure that was even what I was saying.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm sorry Mrs Firefly!

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     AshtonFireflyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm sorry for blowing up.

                     replyreport
   3. 83

      Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The idea is, like in a dinghy, if one hole is poked, the rest sinks into the ocean.
      
      That is why many people hate creationists, they cannot ever change their view.
      
      This is frustrating to atheists or agnostics, who change their views according to the facts that lie before them. Who are able to say "based on the knowledge that I currently possess, I would have to conclude X". Hearing somebody say "I don't care what knowledge anybody possesses, Y is true" really puts a downer on the hopes for humanity.

      replyreport
   4. 57

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      They believe magic exists, which outrank facts.

      replyreport
2. 81

   skyfireposted 12 years ago

   I can't imagine Wolf and Sheep in the same ark. That aside, there is also issue of litter, noah thought about that? Imagine all the animals farting at the same time in ship, that will kill noah's family in few seconds.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      rbe0posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes this theory has recently been proven in the news by the lethal methane vents erupting from the oceans.

      replyreport