Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'.

Prophecy, dude, prophecy.

Explain. Which major religion claims to or is even used to 'predict useful stuff'?

Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.

Also, they make an excellent method of control, because people are scared about what will happen to them once they die. So they also give hope to people that want it.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.

The Book of Revelations would like to have a word with you.

As would every prophet, seer, soothsayer, fortune teller, etc in the history of religious practice. If we go walking around DC long enough, I can show you this in action.

 jasper76 wrote:

You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle East, Planet Earth, and indeed, the Universe itself.

Reading fail of the day: I read this as

"You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle Earth...."

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle East, Planet Earth, and indeed, the Universe itself.

Reading fail of the day: I read this as

"You can't even flip through channels without a televangelist with a map of Israel telling us the fate of the Middle Earth...."

OK, I literally just spit up coffee

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, there is evidence that there were a large number of Jews in Egypt. Whether they were captive or enslaved is another matter.

This is also evidence of a "mass exodus" of people. Whether this migration was under duress (ie, the Exodus story where Pharoah gathers up all the war-boyz in their Trukks (chariots) and chases a bunch of people to a body of water that miraculously parts for one group, and collapses in on the second) is a whole other can of worms.

I "suspect" that there probably was some migration from Egypt. Certainly, if you look at the history of Canaanite pantheon, Yahweh appears to have been introduced by nomadic (ethnically Canaanite) peoples migrating from the south. I suppose the point I'm really making is that a story having "a grain of truth" is not the same as it being historical. The search for Moses' people has been consistently fruitless, and the nature and scale of the exodus mentioned in the Bible doesn't seem to be corroborated by any Egyptian account, or by the archaeology.

Do you happen to have a link to the evidence that you mean? Not that I wish to dispute it, I would just like to read it because it's interesting to me.

 CptJake wrote:
And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'. That is like saying my flat tired bicycle is better at driving on highways than a sandwich will ever be.

Hehe! That made me lol . Though I think the conversation had turned to philosophy and the nature of "reality". Science and religion do both attempt to make sense of reality in their own way. The ability to make accurate predictions is a good indicator that the model is doing what it is supposed to. Iron_Captain seemed to be suggesting that religion was an equally valid method for making sense of reality. In your analogy that would be like saying: "a sandwich is as good a method of transport as anything". So someone pointing out that sandwiches aren't good at driving on highways is actually a fair comment.

SilverMK2 wrote:While I do prefer to argue the points raised in the discussion rather than the person making them I feel some combination of your age and language barriers are creating too much of a hinderace to debate Iron Captain.

While I appreciate your input and willingness to step into the ring I currently don't have the inclination to wade through your post again.

Suffice to say that there is a distinct difference between philisophical uncertainty and scientific uncertainty. It is all very well saying that reality is subjective because human experience is incomplete, but at some point in the day you need to accept that if gak is going to get done you have to stop with the existential angst and accept the best your "limited" certainty can offer.

Science has done pretty well so far in (generally) making the world a better place. Well... unless we are all imagining it I guess

I agree here. If you want to get things done, you need to make do with what you perceive as reality and act as if that is indeed reality, even if it is not certain. Otherwise you would never be able to do anything or do proper science. 100% certainty is not required for science, as you said, and that is good, because otherwise we could never discover anything. Subjective reality is just something you need to keep in the back of your mind when dealing with other people.

And yeah, debating in English is a hard thing (I sometimes spend hours writing a post). But I do learn a lot of new words and ideas every time, so it is good for me.
I am okay with stopping our discussion here. I made my points and I am happy about them, and I think you made your point as well. It is not like we are going to convince each other on this.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Probably because monotheistic religions are the largest and most influential, especially in the West. The only large polytheistic religion nowadays is hinduism, and there are not all that many hindus in the West.

So, polytheism should be assumed false because there is only a billion people that believe in it? When did reality became a democracy?

Haha, no.
What I meant is that because polytheism has much fewer people who believe in it, it is logical that it is much less talked about. Especially in the West, where christianity is pretty much the only religion. I was saying nothing about their religion being false.

Smacks wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, the thing about flying pigs is a strawman for religion where the belief in flying pigs stands in for the belief in God, unless of course you were intending to have a serious discussion on whether pigs fly or not, which is ridiculous...

I'm glad that you agree that flying pigs are ridiculous, but why? Is it because there is no evidence for such a creature? That is a not a strawman. A strawman is misrepresentation. Flying pigs, and the popular "flying spaghetti monster" are not misrepresentations, they are wholly accurate representations of the kind of fantastic claims you are trying to make, based on nothing but hearsay. The flying spaghetti monster also "cannot be disproved", does that make him real? The flying spaghetti also has many miracles attributed to him, is that "evidence" that he exists? There is also a Pastafarian creation story,do you think it really happened?

If you aren't able to see how your own imaginary thing is exactly the same, and just as ridiculous, as other people's imaginary thing, then you wouldn't be the first. Most religious people are too close to their religion to be able to be objective about it.

And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it. Pastafarianism is not a religion because it has no believers. It is a parody of religion, not religion. And like most parodies, it hugely simplifies and misrepresents its source material in order to ridicule it.

 Smacks wrote:

Do you happen to have a link to the evidence that you mean? Not that I wish to dispute it, I would just like to read it because it's interesting to me.

I wish I did.. There was one program that I do remember being on the Military Channel (US Cable channel), and possibly another History special (not Ancient Aliens) That might be a decent starting point.

One point that I do remember, which is why I remember the first one, was that they took "military experts" and talked about the early Jewish tribes as not being a "lost" civilization wandering the desert, but as a military force. A piece of "evidence" that they call on for the "parting of the red sea" as exodus accounts, is that there have been many, many chariot wheels and parts found in the water pretty much right next to what used to be extremely shallow/marshy spots. The theory that the "military experts" were running with, was that an experience military commander would have known about these shallows, and used them to escape during a period of low/lower tides. Then, somehow the chariots either don't know about them, or the soft ground gets them mired, and the "escape" is good.


I think that there are many problems with even that theory, plus, as you mention, there's not much archaeological evidence of a "vast" migrating people (even if it was only 50-100,000 people that would quite large a group, and should leave some evidence somewhere). If one views Exodus as a "historical baseline" ie, the events happened, but perhaps not as literally as written, then I think one could make a somewhat reasonable assumption that the reason for a lack of archaeological evidence could be found in the actions and roots of the ten commandments. By this I mean the condemning of people worshiping idols, on top of the whole being nomadic bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it.

I would offer one thing on this: based on my own experience, and looking around at various "Pro-Atheist" articles/blogs, etc. on the internet, that the vast majority of "non-religious", particularly the Atheist and Agnostic actually come from a background that is heavily religious in nature. I myself grew up going to church 2-3 times per week for the first 16-17 years of my life. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

 CptJake wrote:
And? I don't recall the purpose of any of the major religions being to 'predict useful stuff'.

Remind me the purpose of any religion, then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.

Science does that too. With a twist: when new evidence is discovered that proves the previous explanation wrong, science tries to provide a new, better one. not hiding the fact the previous explanation was wrong. It was just promishing best effort anyway, not definite truth. Religion, on the other hand, will handwave the problem as "it was just metaphors all along, we just failed to notice it before". Which is funnye because it makes religion argue in bad faith lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Haha, no.
What I meant is that because polytheism has much fewer people who believe in it, it is logical that it is much less talked about. Especially in the West, where christianity is pretty much the only religion. I was saying nothing about their religion being false.

Well, I feel it deserves to be discussed much more. Because unless there is a very real reason to discard it that does not discard atheism or monotheism, it is just as valid an option. I am bringing this up because, once again, polytheism, like Marvel stories and all that, largely lacks the varnish of respectability that monotheism enjoy, so I hope that by making people think about it, I can get them to make reasoning that they would never had with monotheism, and them show them how it woulo equally apply to monotheism...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I wish I did.. There was one program that I do remember being on the Military Channel (US Cable channel), and possibly another History special (not Ancient Aliens) That might be a decent starting point.

One point that I do remember, which is why I remember the first one, was that they took "military experts" and talked about the early Jewish tribes as not being a "lost" civilization wandering the desert, but as a military force. A piece of "evidence" that they call on for the "parting of the red sea" as exodus accounts, is that there have been many, many chariot wheels and parts found in the water pretty much right next to what used to be extremely shallow/marshy spots. The theory that the "military experts" were running with, was that an experience military commander would have known about these shallows, and used them to escape during a period of low/lower tides. Then, somehow the chariots either don't know about them, or the soft ground gets them mired, and the "escape" is good.

That actually sounds really familiar. Was there a part about the word Hebrew possibly coming from the Habiru (who were sort of nomadic, auxiliaries/mercenaries)? And another part which talked about the pillar of fire, possibly being a burning standard used by the marching column as reference point? I think there was also a part about Moses moving the pillar to the back of the column to deceive the perusing Egyptians. I don't remember the name of the program, but it was really fascinating.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think one could make a somewhat reasonable assumption that the reason for a lack of archaeological evidence could be found in the actions and roots of the ten commandments. By this I mean the condemning of people worshiping idols, on top of the whole being nomadic bit.

Historically, that might still be awkward, because the idea of Yahweh as the one god doesn't appear until much later. The 10 commandments are also reminiscent of the Babylonian code of Hammurabi, where the law is handed down to Hammurabi by god, and was also written on stone tablets. There are some huge differences, but when you also factor in the flood story of Gilgamesh (which basically is an earlier version of the Noah story), then it starts to paint a picture of Babylonian culture being assimilated by the Israelites during the Babylonian captivity ~600-500bc, long after exodus. I expect that the old testament started to be written and compiled around this time, probably as a response to the political climate. There are a lot of motifs in the OT to do with captivity, and land rights etc...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it.

I would offer one thing on this: based on my own experience, and looking around at various "Pro-Atheist" articles/blogs, etc. on the internet, that the vast majority of "non-religious", particularly the Atheist and Agnostic actually come from a background that is heavily religious in nature. I myself grew up going to church 2-3 times per week for the first 16-17 years of my life. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

I also went to a Church of England school, where we did the prayers and songs every morning, and studied stories from the Bible. It wasn't until I was about 16-18 that I made a conscious decision to question if god really was there. That in itself was difficult, since you're going against a whole lifetime of hearing how god will punish you, for such transgressions. But I think once I stepped out, everything started to make sense. I understood why god allows children to die of starvation, and gives them cancer, and why he always seems to be "moving in mysterious ways" instead of doing what he's supposed to be doing. I realised my whole life I had been making excuses for god "he doesn't like being tested", "he doesn't answer my prayers because I wasn't devout enough", "he didn't know about dinosaurs or heliocentrism because we just weren't interpriting the Bible properly".

The sad thing is, I will never fully be able to let go of god emotionally. I (among many others) were essentially brainwashed and conditioned every single day for years on end. I still ask God for a sign sometimes, and wonder if he is there, why he would hide himself so convincingly from me. If anyone deserves a sign it's me. I actually want to believe, I'd like it to be true. But I can't believe in something that doesn't make any sense.

I suppose it's a bit like the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. I'd love if one day someone finally proved that those things exist, it would be such a fascinating discovery. But all we ever actually see are hoaxes and grainy photographs. When we go looking for these creatures, they just aren't there, and when we actually crunch the numbers we can show that the local ecosystem would not be able to support such large creatures. So they really just aren't there, and never were. It's disappointing, but you can't ignore the facts.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.

Science does that too. With a twist: when new evidence is discovered that proves the previous explanation wrong, science tries to provide a new, better one. not hiding the fact the previous explanation was wrong. It was just promishing best effort anyway, not definite truth. Religion, on the other hand, will handwave the problem as "it was just metaphors all along, we just failed to notice it before". Which is funnye because it makes religion argue in bad faith lol.

So basically, science understands that it went wrong and tries to improve its results, but religion does not?

The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

 Frazzled wrote:
Moral of the story: even in elementary school Da Wimminz are gettin Da Menz in troublz.

Thanks Obama!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Every member of staff involved should be sacked.

Na. They should all hug it out. Maybe sing a song. I know: the Safety Dance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Religious people get moments of silence and other things in school but a 7-year old is not allowed to answer a classmate's question honestly without being punished and given the 3rd degree?

See the staff should be given an award. Now the child knows the value of subterfuge and deceit, the building blocks for every good politician.
After all I'm sure the parents won some bank off Jr's torment. A kid's gotta earn. See it all worked out in the end.

These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy

 welshhoppo wrote:
The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying religion isn't updated because it doesn't need to be?

I can think of lots of instances when religion got an update. The decision recently to remove limbo from the catholic doctrine, for example. The church knew they were wrong saying dead babies had to burn in hell, just as they knew they were wrong about the geocentric solar system, but they can never come out and say "God was wrong, and now he's changed his mind", because that undermines the whole idea of an all knowing god. So we have to go through all this BS of them "reinterpreting the scripture" and having "revelations" before they eventually arrive at the conclusion that we already knew they were going to arrive at, which is to update the doctrine, and say the old doctrine was a mistake (only it was our mistake, not gods). Of course, all the rest of the time the doctrine is the irrefutable word of god, which sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it.

I'm thinking someone forgot about the Mormons and the Pastafarians.

 welshhoppo wrote:

So basically, science understands that it went wrong and tries to improve its results, but religion does not?

The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

In the case of science, we do sometimes still teach the outdated, or old model of something. Look at the "Bohr model" of atoms. Science has shown that it is basically completely wrong, but it's explained that the Bohr model is useful as a 2-D representation of the layers of an atom.


If you consider Mormonism to be a sect of Christianity, they've had some major "updates" round about the time of the end of the civil rights movement. There's also their founding in the 1800s, which is pretty recent. As is the foundation of the Assemblies of God denomination of Christianity, I think they were somewhere in the 1930s or so.

 Xenomancers wrote:
These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy

Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In the case of science, we do sometimes still teach the outdated, or old model of something. Look at the "Bohr model" of atoms. Science has shown that it is basically completely wrong, but it's explained that the Bohr model is useful as a 2-D representation of the layers of an atom.

The solar-system style model of the atom is taught as a basic stepping stone to more accurate, but harder to comprehend models. I don't know how it was when you were in school but we learned about electron probability clouds rather than solar-system models of atoms from about 16, following the first qualification that young people generally sit (GCSE's).

And the reason we still teach that model is that it can be used to explain one hell of a lot about atomic interaction. If there was a fundamental flaw in the model (such as it did not explain why chemical reactions happen the way they do) then I doubt it would still be used.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy

Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?

It is actually a healthy outlook on life and an important lesson to learn.

I'm a liberal in an office full of hardcore conservatives, and if people start talking politics I just dance around the subject as best I can while staying as vague as possible. Because I have learned a long time ago that avoiding to talk about that fundamental part of my outlook on life is better than being ostracized by everyone in my office.

It doesn't excuse a damn thing the teachers did, but it is still an important lesson to learn.

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy

Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?

It is actually a healthy outlook on life and an important lesson to learn.

I'm a liberal in an office full of hardcore conservatives, and if people start talking politics I just dance around the subject as best I can while staying as vague as possible. Because I have learned a long time ago that avoiding to talk about that fundamental part of my outlook on life is better than being ostracized by everyone in my office.

It doesn't excuse a damn thing the teachers did, but it is still an important lesson to learn.

I think the golden rule was the key part I was referencing

 welshhoppo wrote:


The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.

Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm thinking someone forgot about the Mormons and the Pastafarians.

I wouldn't really call Mormons a upgrade, I have very few good things to say about their founder.


My post was about the fact that religion can be extremely inflexible. It doesn't adapt to the times and it can cause massive problems, especially in America. Which, considering it was founded on the basis of there being no major religion is one of the most extremist countries when it comes to Christian faith. You had a civil war over it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


In the case of science, we do sometimes still teach the outdated, or old model of something. Look at the "Bohr model" of atoms. Science has shown that it is basically completely wrong, but it's explained that the Bohr model is useful as a 2-D representation of the layers of an atom.

Bohr model is taught even up to degree level as it is very good at explaining and calculating the energy levels of electrons in Hydrogen-like atoms. For more complex atoms it breaks down.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:


The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.

Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.

Not really used as a source material, though is still referenced. Kind of like saying "well, we still use the wheel so it hasn't changed!" while then comparing an aircraft tyre made with specialist weave and materials against a slightly rounded log

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:


The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.

Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.

Not really used as a source material, though is still referenced. Kind of like saying "well, we still use the wheel so it hasn't changed!" while then comparing an aircraft tyre made with specialist weave and materials against a slightly rounded log

It is available in the libraries of all universities which have a physics department. The basis of it has not changed. For non-relativistic motion Newton is still king. So it is still in use, which is what was asked for.

And really, all science textbooks are just compilations of the findings of countless research papers. There is no "science Bible"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:


The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.

Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.

If we are trying to score 'age points' a lot of mathematics are much older than that.

The CofE mostly uses the New English Bible today. The significance of the King James version is that it was the first Bible published in English rather than Latin, thus opening access to anyone who could read.

The RC church changed from Latin to modern languages in the 1970s.

 Smacks wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And most non-religious people are too far away from it to understand it.

I would offer one thing on this: based on my own experience, and looking around at various "Pro-Atheist" articles/blogs, etc. on the internet, that the vast majority of "non-religious", particularly the Atheist and Agnostic actually come from a background that is heavily religious in nature. I myself grew up going to church 2-3 times per week for the first 16-17 years of my life. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

I also went to a Church of England school, where we did the prayers and songs every morning, and studied stories from the Bible. It wasn't until I was about 16-18 that I made a conscious decision to question if god really was there. That in itself was difficult, since you're going against a whole lifetime of hearing how god will punish you, for such transgressions. But I think once I stepped out, everything started to make sense. I understood why god allows children to die of starvation, and gives them cancer, and why he always seems to be "moving in mysterious ways" instead of doing what he's supposed to be doing. I realised my whole life I had been making excuses for god "he doesn't like being tested", "he doesn't answer my prayers because I wasn't devout enough", "he didn't know about dinosaurs or heliocentrism because we just weren't interpriting the Bible properly".

The sad thing is, I will never fully be able to let go of god emotionally. I (among many others) were essentially brainwashed and conditioned every single day for years on end. I still ask God for a sign sometimes, and wonder if he is there, why he would hide himself so convincingly from me. If anyone deserves a sign it's me. I actually want to believe, I'd like it to be true. But I can't believe in something that doesn't make any sense.

I suppose it's a bit like the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. I'd love if one day someone finally proved that those things exist, it would be such a fascinating discovery. But all we ever actually see are hoaxes and grainy photographs. When we go looking for these creatures, they just aren't there, and when we actually crunch the numbers we can show that the local ecosystem would not be able to support such large creatures. So they really just aren't there, and never were. It's disappointing, but you can't ignore the facts.

Being raised in a religious environment doesn't mean you will understand religion. I mean, theologists and priests study their entire life, and even they admit to not understanding everything. Most priests I know even say that religion can't be understood with the mind at all, you need to ''feel'' it. Religion is emotional, not rational. I don't think you should try to approach it with ration. I think most people get too bogged down in the details when they try to rationalise their belief, and then don't see the bigger picture. God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless. Without evil, there can be no good. Death is not a bad thing, and no more evil than life itself. Without death, how could there be life?
Inaccuracies in the Bible are easy to explain, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago, by people with a vastly different worldview. Heliocentrism is not in the Bible because the people who wrote it did not even know what it was. They wrote about the world familiar to them. The value of the Bible, and why it is a sacred book, is not in the details of the stories written a thousand years ago or in the lawbooks of the ancient Hebrews, it is in the messages contained within those stories about the religion and how to live a good life.

I can understand why you turned away from God, I often doubt and struggle with the same things. But for some reason, whenever I am like that and pray, I become completely calm and come to understand why things are the way they are. Call it some kind of deeper understanding, belief or whatever you want, it is not a feeling that can really be explained.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And really, all science textbooks are just compilations of the findings of countless research papers. There is no "science Bible"

A Bible is also just a compilation of different stories, compiled by a bunch of theologists in the 4th century and regularly changed after that. There is also not really such thing as "the" Bible. There are many different kinds of Bibles, and their content can be very different as well.

God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless.

That is complete bs.

Also, if the Bible is the word of God then it shouldn't matter when it was written, it should be correct. Unless of course God didn't have a clue how the Universe he supposedly created worked whilst we humans who just live in it do.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It is available in the libraries of all universities which have a physics department. The basis of it has not changed. For non-relativistic motion Newton is still king. So it is still in use, which is what was asked for.

It was actually asked which science book has been used the C17 without adaptation. Newton's work is not used as originally printed, hence it has been adapted. Only the curious would actually look up the original book

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I think most people get too bogged down in the details when they try to rationalise their belief, and then don't see the bigger picture. God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless. Without evil, there can be no good. Death is not a bad thing, and no more evil than life itself. Without death, how could there be life?
Inaccuracies in the Bible are easy to explain, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago, by people with a vastly different worldview. Heliocentrism is not in the Bible because the people who wrote it did not even know what it was. They wrote about the world familiar to them. The value of the Bible, and why it is a sacred book, is not in the details of the stories written a thousand years ago or in the lawbooks of the ancient Hebrews, it is in the messages contained within those stories about the religion and how to live a good life.

I can understand why you turned away from God, I often doubt and struggle with the same things. But for some reason, whenever I am like that and pray, I become completely calm and come to understand why things are the way they are. Call it some kind of deeper understanding, belief or whatever you want, it is not a feeling that can really be explained.

This is a nice post, I think you have presented your idea in a way that is understandable, and not confrontational, and I appreciate that. Exalt from me.

I agree with you that the value in the bible is within the stories, and what they can teach us about how to live a good life. However, they are very old stories, which you seem to agree were written by people with a very limited knowledge of (if nothing else) the solar system. If we can't trust them to teach us about the solar system, then can we really trust them to teach us about morality? Morality has come a long way in 2000 years, there has been a lot of philosophising about ethics, law, human and animal rights, government etc... We don't really need the bible's morality any more. In fact, it seems that the bible is now just sending mixed messages, because its outdated morality can be seen to justify things like stoning and the death penalty (for adultery), stuff which seems vengeful and barbaric by modern standards (amoral).

I can understand that you might feel that there is a power in the universe, and that you can feel closer to that by praying (or meditation). I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But to then say that power is the judeo-christian god, and that for some strange reason one tribe of ancient nomads knew about him, even though they didn't seem to know anything else useful about natural history. Don't you think that's a little far fetched?

@Iron Captain - exalted. Well spoken.

So many people go straight to tearing down the Bible. While considered divine-inspired for it's overall messages, it was ultimately written by ancient people. Broken, imperfect people.

Same goes for attacks against the historical organizations. There have been atrocities committed in the name of God, shame on those people. Again though - churches are made of broken and imperfect people.

The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit. Science produces good fruit, knowlege is to be strived for, to better help our fellow man, but it does not necessarily have to be to the exclusion of all religion.

I have seen first hand the selfless compassion of missionaries, the enormous charity wrought by these billion-strong organizations. There is so much good produced by people of faith. There is also comfort provided in philosophy, that we have consciousness for a reason. That your life has purpose, given to you by a living, loving creator. That there will always be a place to go, even when life kicks you in the teeth (which it will), that will take you with open arms, no questions asked.

The ultimate teaching seems to be to love, to forgive, and not to judge others.

Surely there is room for these kinds of people in our world?

Live and let live, regardless of your beliefs.

 zgort wrote:


Live and let live, regardless of your beliefs.

That's my argument, but my wife won't let me help Europe with it's declining birth rate!

 kronk wrote:
That's my argument, but my wife won't let me help Europe with it's declining birth rate!

You need to direct her to Genesis 16.2:

So Sarai said unto Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; so that I may build a family through her." Abram agreed...

I bet he did