Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon
[font="Palatino Linotype"][color="Navy"][size="4"]
There's gotta be some credible evidence in the Bible to be used in a "discussion." To say that the Bible cannot be used as evidence is like saying is completely false -- it's just as ridiculous as saying everything in the Bible is true. I'm gonna have to disagree with you that it doesn't work -- I'm sure it can, but ask me the same question in 50 years and I'll be sure to give you a better response on the matter.
|
This depends on the nature of the discussion. If it's about Christianity or the Christian view of something, then the bible is suitable to use. When Christianity isn't relevant or when the subject matter isn't mentioned in the bible (i.e. a recent scientific discovery), then it's fairly useless to start pulling passages from the bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon
That's essentially all it is...just throw in some scientific terms, but it is what it is. You want shit that you can measure. When you're unable to measure it, you'll drop the baby and say "fuck it." There is no God. The Bible is fake, everything is fake. It's all a myth, yadda yadda yadda. I mean...it happens all the time.
|
The paradigm of science rests on being able to test and investigate. When something cant be measured, then it's time to figure out a way to measure it. After trying and finding that it cannot be done, science can only provide a scientific outcome. It's circular but my point is religion isn't scientific, so unless a certain aspect is being measured, no scientist can give a conclusion about a religion.
I've heard and seen many people explain one of the reasons they're atheistic is because science cannot provide sufficient proof. To me, that's a laugh because religion and science use completely different paradigms, it's impossible to give a conclusion about the other. For example, I can discredit a religion's view of how humans arrived with the scientific view of evolution and abiogenesis. The problem is none of that actually matters since at the end of the day, it doesn't address religion's paradigm. I do find such an argument to be appropriate when a person tries to provide a religious explanation for a scientific finding because to me, they entered the scientific paradigm, so religion reasons are moot.