Do they really believe?

[WhiteLight]

...and I am sure the 40 percent that is right and inerrant is the NT, right? considering breaking the bible down 60 percent is OT and 40 percent is NT.

What makes that 40 percent right? Explain.

I did not say that.  There are many errant teachings in the NT also.

Portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology; other portions can be deemed true based on philosophical and societal truths; etc.

WhiteLight, I take it you are version 38,001 of christianity.

Interesting how almost every christian has a unique view of their religion. If there 38,001 versions of how tonight's World Series game ended life would suck. But nobody cares if there are that many versions of christianity. Except is sure sounds stupid that none of you guys can agree on anything except the color of your favorite book.

I am not a christian, nor did I ever profess to be in any of my posts.
I am an intellectual who spends all of my time in study of sciences and theology.  Contrary to many, the two are not mutually exclusive.

By your measuring stick of, as you put it "stupid", then so also is everyone who subscribes to current science: there are many scientific "theory" versions of how the universe came into existence, with divisions among the scientific community members (FYI the big bang theory has now been discarded by most theoretical physicists as false).

I would prefer to have a mature discussion with professionalism and courtesy, and not the typical unbeneficial bashing at others that is so prevalant in forums.

[Emily]

I did not say that.  There are many errant teachings in the NT also.

Portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology; other portions can be deemed true based on philosophical and societal truths; etc.

i know, I know. You are right, you didn't say that. but still. Explain the parts of the bible that are right. At least 60 of the bible is wrong, according to you. What is right about the bible. Explain.

i mean there is facual basis in archaeology, right. You said so yourself. So where?!?

[ParkingPlaces]

...and I am sure the 40 percent that is right and inerrant is the NT, right? considering breaking the bible down 60 percent is OT and 40 percent is NT.

What makes that 40 percent right? Explain.

I did not say that.  There are many errant teachings in the NT also.

Portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology; other portions can be deemed true based on philosophical and societal truths; etc.

WhiteLight, I take it you are version 38,001 of christianity.

Interesting how almost every christian has a unique view of their religion. If there 38,001 versions of how tonight's World Series game ended life would suck. But nobody cares if there are that many versions of christianity. Except is sure sounds stupid that none of you guys can agree on anything except the color of your favorite book.

I am not a christian, nor did I ever profess to be in any of my posts.
I am an intellectual who spends all of my time in study of sciences and theology.  Contrary to many, the two are not mutually exclusive.

By your measuring stick of, as you put it "stupid", then so also is everyone who subscribes to current science: there are many scientific "theory" versions of how the universe came into existence, with divisions among the scientific community members (FYI the big bang theory has now been discarded by most theoretical physicists as false).

I would prefer to have a mature discussion with professionalism and courtesy, and not the typical unbeneficial bashing at others that is so prevalant in forums.

Our bad. People who speak of the bible and also seem religious tend to call themselves christian. I guess you're making up something entirely new.

And no, the big bang has not been discarded by most physicists. Some yes, not most. I've no idea who is right but I sure know the bible thing is wrong. What's your take on it all? You big on the old Jewish sea serpent or do you like turtles all the way down?

[WhiteLight]

i mean there is facual basis in archaeology, right. You said so yourself. So where?!?

I stated that portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology, there is a difference.  This means that portions of the scriptures used as a historical reference are accurate.
The total number of scriptural items that have been matched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.
If you need some proof for yourself, watch a few shows of The Naked Archeologist (try Vision TV or PBS), or use your friend Google to do some searches on biblical archaeology.
I fail to see the benefit of this direction of discussion, unless there was something specific you were looking for.
If this is an attempt to show failure because I cannot show a smoking gun for the existence of a superior-being, then it is pointless, scientists cannot show a smoking gun to the beginning of the universe or the start of life on earth.  There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.

[ParkingPlaces]

There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.

Maybe, but at least we have somewhere to look.

[Emily]

I stated that portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology, there is a difference.  This means that portions of the scriptures used as a historical reference are accurate.
The total number of scriptural items that have been maems that have been matched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.tched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.
If you need some proof for yourself, watch a few shows of The Naked Archeologist (try Vision TV or PBS), or use your friend Google to do some searches on biblical archaeology.
I fail to see the benefit of this direction of discussion, unless there was something specific you were looking for.
If this is an attempt to show failure because I cannot show a smoking gun for the existence of a superior-being, then it is pointless, scientists cannot show a smoking gun to the beginning of the universe or the start of life on earth.  There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.

Oh. OK.  :shrug


No, it's not ok. I can search google and come up with MANY MANY hits. Give me links.Give me you opinion on those links.

Tell me: At least 60 percent of the bible is wrong, as you claim. Tell me, what parts of the bible is right.

tits of GTFO

OH yeah, and bear with me because I don't have any TV service, so I can't watch visionTV or PBS. So do me a favor, please, since I can't watch TV, give me a link (since you claim a google search will yield what you claim. Don't make me do your homework for you.
 

[ParkingPlaces]

I'm giving you a hard time, WhiteLight, because you're standing around saying "Holy cow, it's all so incredible. I must be right!" We atheists take issue with that.

[WhiteLight]

Our bad. People who speak of the bible and also seem religious tend to call themselves christian. I guess you're making up something entirely new.

And no, the big bang has not been discarded by most physicists. Some yes, not most. I've no idea who is right but I sure know the bible thing is wrong. What's your take on it all? You big on the old Jewish sea serpent or do you like turtles all the way down?

"Making up"...  
Actually there are a lot of theologians who agree on a large number of these things.  And many who rightly question a large percentage of the scriptures.  This does not mean however that everything is discarded in favour of a flawed scientific theory on everything.

I stated theoretical physicists, and most of the world's top tp's no longer accept tbbt mainly because it does not provide cause and effect.
Just as the astronomy books all have to be re-written because of Pluto's reclassification, expect re-writes in a few years as tbbt gets discarded when the scientific community agrees on a new theory.

My personal opinion would be too lengthy, it would require a book, suffice it to say that I question the flaws in both areas (science and religion).  However, science does not answer many of the questions, that in my opinion can only be answered with involvement of a superior-being.

[Emily]

My personal opinion would be too lengthy, it would require a book, suffice it to say that I question the flaws in both areas (science and religion).  

How about you do your best. to make it fit in a comment box at WWGHA...

[Alzael]

i mean there is facual basis in archaeology, right. You said so yourself. So where?!?

I stated that portions of the scriptures are factual based on archaeology, there is a difference.  This means that portions of the scriptures used as a historical reference are accurate.
The total number of scriptural items that have been matched in archaeology are too many to list here, locations, buildings, artifacts, events, individuals, etc.
If you need some proof for yourself, watch a few shows of The Naked Archeologist (try Vision TV or PBS), or use your friend Google to do some searches on biblical archaeology.
I fail to see the benefit of this direction of discussion, unless there was something specific you were looking for.
If this is an attempt to show failure because I cannot show a smoking gun for the existence of a superior-being, then it is pointless, scientists cannot show a smoking gun to the beginning of the universe or the start of life on earth.  There are just as many unknowns in current scientific creation as there is in a superior-being creation.

It's amazing how there's always "too many to list" when it comes to providing evidence. Of course you could at least list some of the evidence. You know, make an honest effort to back up your words rather than just talk and waste everyone's time. If you fail to see the benefit in the discussion, why start it? We don't have to show your failure because you haven't provided evidence of your success.

[ParkingPlaces]

I stated theoretical physicists, and most of the world's top tp's no longer accept tbbt mainly because it does not provide cause and effect.

I would suggest, between efforts at enlightening us, you head over to wikipedia and, using your sources as reference, update the Big Bang entry. Because they have it all wrong:

"While scientists now prefer the Big Bang model over other cosmological models, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations. With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations."

I know wikipedia isn't the end all when it comes to facts. But it takes people like you to keep it them honest. Grab your citations and get at it.

And you might tell us what the predominate theory is called, because my Hasbro "Little scientist" fake kid computer doesn't have anything else on it.

[WhiteLight]

Maybe, but at least we have somewhere to look.

I disagree.  It is just as impossible to prove 'brane theory or the 'theory of the small' as it is to prove a superior being.
And future technology will not get us those scientific answers.  Hadron, missions to Mars, none of those will tell us anything about the true beginnings of the universe or of life, just more scientific speculation.
60+ years ago the scientific community believed that Mars had forests.  Science has since shown that the scriptural view on our unique life here was the correct one.

And don't worry about giving me a hard time, I can take it.

Don't make me do your homework for you.

It isn't my homework, I'm not here to evangelize anyone.  My studies and experiences have given sufficient proof for myself.

[ParkingPlaces]

Science has since shown that the scriptural view on our unique life here was the correct one.

You have all this information we don't have. Cut and paste something. We're salivating re: all the knowledge you have to bring to the table.

[Emily]

It isn't my homework, I'm not here to evangelize anyone.  My studies and experiences have given sufficient proof for myself.

How about proving it to us. If your proof falls on some TV show I cannot watch it because I'm too poor to afford TV service.


I mean, help me out. Offer up p me this proof you have. It shouldn't be this hard.

[WhiteLight]

I would suggest, between efforts at enlightening us, you head over to wikipedia and, using your sources as reference, update the Big Bang entry.

I recommend looking up The Perimeter Institute (http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/).
I can give you a decent list of theoretical physicists as well if you need.
You can also look for the BBC Horizon 2010 documentary titled "What Happened Before the Big Bang".

[Emily]

I would suggest, between efforts at enlightening us, you head over to wikipedia and, using your sources as reference, update the Big Bang entry.

I recommend looking up The Perimeter Institute (http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/).
I can give you a decent list of theoretical physicists as well if you need.
You can also look for the BBC Horizon 2010 documentary titled "What Happened Before the Big Bang".

You'r a fucking idiot. No where in even their about page (http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/About/General/About_PI_Overview/) do they even come close to claiming what you do.

[Alzael]

This is from one of the Institutes articles on Quantum Gravity Detail.

"There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports a Big Bang picture, but this picture implies that the entire universe, consisting presently of almost unimaginably vast volumes of space containing countless stars and galaxies was, near the beginning of the Big Bang, compressed to a size much smaller than the nucleus of a single atom! To describe such a bizarrely singular situation will require a theory that seamlessly combines our best understanding of the very small (quantum theory) with our best understanding of space, time and gravity (general relativity). At present we have only glimpses of such a unified theory. Called the quantum theory of gravity (or quantum gravity, for short), this theory is currently the subject of very active research at Perimeter Institute and several other institutions around the world, and is widely regarded as the holy grail of 21st century theoretical physics. "

Oh yeah. Clearly they don't believe that the big bang occurred. They merely have overwhelming evidence that it happened and are currently working on a theory to further explain it. Why can they never think about these things before they post them?

[WhiteLight]

How about proving it to us. If your proof falls on some TV show I cannot watch it because I'm too poor to afford TV service.
I mean, help me out. Offer up p me this proof you have. It shouldn't be this hard.

What specifically do you want?  If it is archaeological, then what would be sufficient?  Photos and information that specific temples existed, or that specific jewish garments used by the Levite priests existed and have been excavated from ruins?  Note that in my opinion this doesn't prove that a superior being exists, it just proves the existence of the religion itself.

If you are asking me to prove that a superior being exists, then I can no more do that than you can prove to me that strings comprise all of the matter in our universe or of the existence of dark matter (actually I do believe string theory and in dark matter so I technically require other examples, but this is simply to show that certain tasks are impossible).

If you want archaeology, then give me some time to get some links.  If you have a PC/Mac that can play video files I can post you some links to some documentaries for download.  But as I said, they no more prove existence of "God" than anyone in science can prove the existence of strings or 'branes.

[Alzael]

In fact I did a search for the big bang. I see a piece about the mathematical study of how the universe began and what it looked like after the Big Bang. I see an article where they characterize the possible states of matter that could have been formed in the big bang. An explanation of what likely happened at the time of the big bang. However nowhere in the first thirty hits does it at any point even mention a criticism of the theory.

Edit: Whitelight, as you look for your evidence, please spare us a lot bother and remember that we all have computers and the internet, so we can actually look this stuff up too. So if you're going to lie and make false claims, at least make them interesting ones. That way when we investigate them and toss them out it at least provides us with a little amusement.

[WhiteLight]

You'r a fucking idiot.

Oh yeah. Clearly they don't believe that the big bang occurred. They merely have overwhelming evidence that it happened and are currently working on a theory to further explain it. Why can they never think about these things before they post them?

Wow, and you wonder why people don't come here to rationally discuss things with you.
Alzael, for just one example from multiple theoretical physicists, pull down the documentary if you don't believe me.  The Perimeter Institute houses many scientists with widely varying views, this has no effect on the accuracy of what I posted earlier.

That's it for me people, I can see that there is no reason to be involved in "discussions" like this.
Good luck with your lives and your limited views.
You all make me happy that I am not an atheist, I would hate to think that I would treat people the way that you do.
You must lead very unhappy lives.

[catlady]

"Making up"...   
Actually there are a lot of theologians who agree on a large number of these things.  And many who rightly question a large percentage of the scriptures.  This does not mean however that everything is discarded in favour of a flawed scientific theory on everything.

I stated theoretical physicists, and most of the world's top tp's no longer accept tbbt mainly because it does not provide cause and effect.
Just as the astronomy books all have to be re-written because of Pluto's reclassification, expect re-writes in a few years as tbbt gets discarded when the scientific community agrees on a new theory.

Yes, "making up". 

Your statements  alone claiming a 'superior being', and parts of the bible being (40%) 'true'- kind of invalidates the claim you've made re: "studying science and theology", if you've accepted myth as the truth.
 Re: the BBT, Are most of your sources you claim  ("world's top tps") pseudo-science creationist apologists?
 Seems you  have come to conclusions and stuffed those conclusions with  erroneous 'research' and selective "studying" so as to fit your already-concluded superior-being-belief. Why would you do that? Why choose myth to believe ?

[blue]

You're not used to having your statements checked out are you, WhiteLight? I've seen you make nothing but unbacked statements and sidestepping any actual substance. Trust me, we will shed no tear if you decide to leave. Of course you could stick around and learn something.

[Alzael]

I have no idea of what he's talking about in regards to the 'documentary' since there's nothing listed about that on the site. Unless he means the advertising documentary for the school. But I checked through the bios of the head researchers. One who's working on the big bang. Three who are studying alternate early models of the universe, but none disagreeing or looking for big bang alternatives. I scanned some of the research papers and couldn't find anything like that either. If Whitelight wants to actually point me to where the information is, which I might add he failed to do the last time, I'll be happy to give it due consideration and evaluation. Otherwise he's just a liar and a very poor one. But he has succeeded in making me waste about an hour of my life so if that's any kind of a consolation to him than I guess, go Whitelight.

[wright]

You'r a fucking idiot.

Oh yeah. Clearly they don't believe that the big bang occurred. They merely have overwhelming evidence that it happened and are currently working on a theory to further explain it. Why can they never think about these things before they post them?

Wow, and you wonder why people don't come here to rationally discuss things with you.
Alzael, for just one example from multiple theoretical physicists, pull down the documentary if you don't believe me.  The Perimeter Institute houses many scientists with widely varying views, this has no effect on the accuracy of what I posted earlier.

That's it for me people, I can see that there is no reason to be involved in "discussions" like this.
Good luck with your lives and your limited views.
You all make me happy that I am not an atheist, I would hate to think that I would treat people the way that you do.
You must lead very unhappy lives.

Quite a few people come here and manage to have rational discussions, even when they disagree with each other. However many of the atheist regulars, including me, are ex-theists and as such have little patience with the evasions that most theist posters tend to resort to.

When someone makes a claim, they are expected to back it up. The more extraordinary the claim (god is real, the Big Bang Theory is no longer widely accepted), the more is expected in the way of actual evidence. If this can't be provided, the claim will be criticized and yes, ridiculed.

If this environment is too harsh for you then indeed you're better off elsewhere. Too bad you were so thin-skinned; I was genuinely curious about your view on the resurrection of sinners and what you saw as it's  basis.

[ParkingPlaces]

Okay, I guess this is how it works. Dude shows up, hassles us, gives no sources but makes lot of claims. Then we wear him out and he's all frustrated and he leaves, but in his parting entry he finally mentions an institute where maybe scientists are doing what he's saying. I dunno, no need to look into it much since he's gone. But why the heck couldn't he have said where he got his info in his first post decrying the Big Bang theory instead of his last post ever.

Why can't these guys figure out that we like information, not speculation. All he had to do was give us his source, but nooooooo, that's too hard unless it's the last post, the one where he gets to express his dissatisfaction with our lack of patience. Wow.

Only a billion or so fundy's left. What will we do when we wear them all out?

[blue]

Only a billion or so fundy's left. What will we do when we wear them all out?

Fundy's frighten easily, but they'll be back and in greater numbers.

[Alzael]

PP, he didn't even give us his source when he left. Just a meaningless mention that doesn't seem to exist on the site. You're giving him too much credit.

[ParkingPlaces]

PP, he didn't even give us his source when he left. Just a meaningless mention that doesn't seem to exist on the site. You're giving him too much credit.

I found a wikipedia entry but didn't follow through on it.

What other kind of physicist other than a theoretical one would be looking at the formation of the universe? "Actual" physicists? "Maybe" physicists? "Guessing" physicists?

Even "Conservapedia" says there are only two types. Theoretical and Experimental. And since I don't think we can shoot a Large Hadron Collider into orbit around the black hole in the center of the Andromeda Galaxy, methinks all space related physics is more or less theoretical. So what the heck was the dude talking about?

Maybe Alka-Seltzer Fizzycists. But that's just a guess.

I was going to go to bed but this weighed on my mind. That hurt. Had to turn my computer back on and ask you guys. Any ideas?

[Anfauglir]

Be aware that at least 60% of the "scriptures" (in the Bible) are errant and doctrines of men.....Much of what mainstream christianity teaches is errant, so one must be careful not to subscribe to those particular stories and idioms.

What specifically do you want?  If it is archaeological, then what would be sufficient?  Photos and information that specific temples existed, or that specific jewish garments used by the Levite priests existed and have been excavated from ruins?  Note that in my opinion this doesn't prove that a superior being exists, it just proves the existence of the religion itself.

I don't think one single person here would argue that Christianity the religion does not exist, any more than we would argue that the Harry Potter Fan Club does not exist.

What is annoying me is that you were quite clear that 60% of the Bible is errant - which includes portions of the NT as well as old - but that you are going to great lengths to avoid specifically descibing WHICH parts are errant.  From what you HAVE said, it is more and more appearing that you are regarding things like towns and cities names, customs and clothes references, as being the "true parts" - which by process of elimination leads to the conclusion that therefore the errant parts are the ones dealing with miracles and doctrine.

60% being errant is a huge percentage (not to mention being a suspiciously exact number....).  Frankly, once I'd established that any book I had previously relied on was 60% wrong, I would be VERY wary of basing my decisions on the other 40%.  I'd constantly be worried that I was relying on something that I just hadn't yet worked out was wrong.

60% errant.....ok.  How about an example of a passage that is errant, and an example of a passage that is not.  And an explanation of how you tell the difference.