Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantCreateACoolUsername
Haha, nothing in the bible goes against science? Uhh... what about creationism? What about the tidbit about the flat earth and that all the planets revolve around the earth? There are so many contradictions, at best
the bible is a bad fiction story.
|
With all due respect, I believe you are confusing what you think is in the Bible with what is actually in there. Creationism is not required by the Bible, it is merely an incredibly strict interpretation of the Genesis narrative, while none of the references to the Earth or the movement of the stars etc. infer anything like the Earth being flat or the planets revolving around it. Interpretations of those verses (most of which are in Isiah and therefore arguably figurative language anyway given he was a prophet) can point to them meaning either a flat or spherical Earth - it is purely the prejudice of the reader which determines which it actually is, not any objective fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantCreateACoolUsername
The things in the bible which cannot be disproved are unfalsifiable hypothesizes. For instance, if I say I can fly when nobody is watching me or when I'm not being videotaped... there is no way you could disprove it. If I say I have an invisible dragon which can't be seen/ touched/ heard/ tasted/ smelled, can you disprove that?
|
If that claim is to evaluated, it would help if you would provide examples of such unfalsifiable claims. With the examples you provide, the inherent contradiction of making observable phenomena unobservable renders them false on grounds of logic without their falsifiability coming into the equation - if you claim something as totally invisible you cannot at the same time ascribe physical form to it, while the claim of unobservable flight similarly fails as it would always be observable by satellites etc. The nature of God makes no claims of observable phenomena and so the analogy does not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantCreateACoolUsername
I'm sorry but your whole argument is laughable at best, 
it's sad how people can still believe in myths from the bronze age when so obviously it's as childish as the tooth fairy. Arguments like this really make me wonder where society is going... |
It may well be your opinion that such beliefs are "myths from the bronze age" (although I would point out Christianity is actually post-Iron Age so already there is a flaw in your premise), but that makes it neither objective fact nor self-evident as you claim. I would also advise against making sweeping claims about the arguments of others as, with respect, it does nothing to reinforce your argument and may indeed detract from it.