What makes the bible true

[The King]

not to worry. Well all see the Truth in the end.

You sure? If we get reincarnated, it's possible we'd never know...

Oh yes, we're sure because we've already seen the Truth.

[Maddhattter]

not to worry. Well all see the Truth in the end.

You sure? If we get reincarnated, it's possible we'd never know...

[4.6coupe]

not to worry. Well all see the Truth in the end.

[Maddhattter]

Take charles darwin, did you know he came from a christian family background...
Up until the death of annie, his oldest and dearest 10 yr old. She ended up dying from tuberculosis... at that point he was angry at God for not saving her daughter. Well the rest is history... then comes about his writings.

Take checking your sources, did you know that when you do that you can keep from sounding like an idiot when someone inevitably shows you that your wrong...
Up until the discovery of valid sources, the reliable resources that is used for determining how much weight a person should have on a topic, we would have to believe everything. We used to believe anything that couldn't be disproven... at that point we wound up letting thousands of people die to blood-letting and leaching. Well, the rest is history... then we found out how science works.

One of these things is not like the other. One of these is an actual historical situation. I'd bet it's not 4.6coupe's misinformation.

[Parasite Eva]

Take charles darwin, did you know he came from a christian family background...
Up until the death of annie, his oldest and dearest 10 yr old. She ended up dying from tuberculosis... at that point he was angry at God for not saving her daughter. Well the rest is history... then comes about his writings.

I actually dug myself out of lurk mode due to this post alone.

Please, do your research before passing off misinformation as fact.

Annie Darwin died of unknown causes(some say Scarlet Fever, some say Tuberculosis) in the year 1851. Charles Darwin began to work on his theory of evolution, worded as transmutation, in 1837. That is 14 years before the death of his daughter.

I'm assuming you're referring to Origin of Species in your mentioning of writings. The death of Annie was not the catalyst for his work on evolution. His voyage on the Beagle, from 1832 to 1836, actually got the ball rolling. Yes, Origin of Species was published 1859, but only after two decades worth of research. Per Darwin himself, "In July 1(1837) I opened my first note-book for fact in relation to the Origin of Species, about which I had long reflected, and never ceased working for the next twenty years."

Also, in Darwin's own words: "But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,-is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament? This appeared to me utterly incredible."

Notice, once again, that his doubt in God and faith occurred close to two decades before Annie's death. Annie was not this be-all-end-all catalyst that you claim her to be.

Sources: Timeline of the Life of Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin: His Life Told in Autobiographical Chapter and in a Selected Series of His Published Letters

[The King]

He just doesn't know what it means. He does fit the dictionary definition though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective

Examples of HYPOCRITE

1. the hypocrites who criticize other people for not voting but who don't always vote themselves

Good to see you've gotten yourself sidetracked from your original premise for this thread. Wasn't going very well for you, was it LOL. At least you're not all upset and mad any more....that's progress.

[Maddhattter]

My point was people can be presented with all the evidence possible but still they won't believe. It's not just an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual one.

This is probably the best post in the entire thread...for both sides.

I disagree with this. On either side, once a truth claim is made, the problem moved right into the exclusivity of the intellectual. Claiming something does exist requires evidence.

Not believing something exists does not require evidence. Having faith in something, by definition, requires no evidence. The faith that theists have in their particular god/gods is beyond my concern. In other words, I don't care if they believe in god/gods or not. I've made no attempt to tell them that there is no god/gods, nor have I attempted to convince them that their god/gods don't exists.

I will, however, always respond to truth claims. These can be examined by science and verified or falsified. When someone comes in and starts spreading disinformation, as stephen4785 has done in nearly every post he's made in this thread, all they do is mislead others. Again, I'm not referring to his belief in a god or gods. I'm talking about his invalid sources, bullshit criteria, and incorrect validation techniques.

Science has always been the most reliable way to determine the details of the world around us. To misrepresent how science determines things is to undermine everything that we currently know and to insult everyone who practices science. If you remove methodological naturalism the only bias I can be claimed to have, from the equation we can't know anything because methodological naturalism is the scientific method.

I think the only reason these "debates" even exist is because we like to argue. I hope that everybody in here realizes that nobody will be convinced of the other persons beliefs.

I pretty much agree. It just seems that, in the context of my back and forth with stephen4785, you are conflating beliefs with scientific and historic validation techniques and source validation, or what would constitute as evidence in a research paper. If that is what you are referring to when you talk about person's beliefs, then I disagree with that. If not, I misread, and I can't disagree with you on that point, as you would be right.

I can't say that I'm any different than anybody here though. For the most part I don't care, but every once in a while, I feel the need to argue. Sometimes I lose the battle, sometimes I don't. However, I never felt that I won. I think that's good though. Nobody should ever get set in their ways. It leaves the mind closed to other options.

Agreed, with similar conditions as above.

[racrguy]

You calling out someone for name-calling is hypocritical when you have done it countless times before. You probably hear that word more than most, wonder why.

I can be satanic, christian, buddhist, or whatever and you're still a hypocrite, just because it didn't happen in this thread doesn't change facts. I'm not trying to prove anything, you've done a fine job.

He just doesn't know what it means. He does fit the dictionary definition though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
— hypocrite adjective

Examples of HYPOCRITE

1. the hypocrites who criticize other people for not voting but who don't always vote themselves

[4.6coupe]

Take charles darwin, did you know he came from a christian family background...
Up until the death of annie, his oldest and dearest 10 yr old. She ended up dying from tuberculosis... at that point he was angry at God for not saving her daughter. Well the rest is history... then comes about his writings.

[jdgregory84]

My point was people can be presented with all the evidence possible but still they won't believe. It's not just an intellectual problem, it's a spiritual one.

This is probably the best post in the entire thread...for both sides. I think the only reason these "debates" even exist is because we like to argue. I hope that everybody in here realizes that nobody will be convinced of the other persons beliefs.

I can't say that I'm any different than anybody here though. For the most part I don't care, but every once in a while, I feel the need to argue. Sometimes I lose the battle, sometimes I don't. However, I never felt that I won. I think that's good though. Nobody should ever get set in their ways. It leaves the mind closed to other options.

[CWO]

Fuck. Just fuck.

[The King]

You certainly are trying, and failing, to prove something. You're here aren't you, or is that another example of reality you are attempting, and failing, to ignore?

[CWO]

Not in this thread, or is reality something you choose to ignore when convenient (very likely).

LOL at hypocrite, the most common word of choice for those who have failed in every way to present themselves as relevant to theological topics.

You calling out someone for name-calling is hypocritical when you have done it countless times before. You probably hear that word more than most, wonder why.

I can be satanic, christian, buddhist, or whatever and you're still a hypocrite, just because it didn't happen in this thread doesn't change facts. I'm not trying to prove anything, you've done a fine job.

[The King]

You have GOT to be kidding me right now. If you are the king of anything it is name calling. Hypocrite.

Not in this thread, or is reality something you choose to ignore when convenient (very likely).

LOL at hypocrite, the most common word of choice for those who have failed in every way to present themselves as relevant to theological topics.

[CWO]

There goes our boy reverting to name-calling yet again, LOL. It's still comical though that he falls into such predictable behavior right on cue every time he gets upset and flustered.

You have GOT to be kidding me right now. If you are the king of anything it is name calling. Hypocrite.