re: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)

quote:

---

Yes, you're right, the whole thing is a pseudo-scientific sham perpetrated by large swaths of the worlds intellectuals. Its a big coordinated gag

---

+1

quote:

---

I don't think you know what this term means. Ad hominem arguments refer to personal traits that are unrelated to the topic. An example would be those in this thread that would discount my knowledge of science based on the fact that I am Christian. Your knowledge, or lack thereof, is very much pertinent to this discussion.

---

Riiiiiiight.....thats twice you've been wrong regarding logical fallacies. Your lack of knowledge in the meaning of these terms isn't really interesting to me though so ima move on.

quote:

---

Yes, my apostles base conclusions on hundreds of years of compounded empirical observation.

---

No.

All too often your "apostles" preform conclusions based on funding availability. Then they attempt to support those conclusions with contrivance, rather than test them with question and experiment.

I reconcile it the same way the Pope does and don't take things in the bible as literally true. If I did I would have to believe that an angry mob wanted to rape two angels and Lot offered his daughters instead. The same two daughters who would later get Lot drunk, have sex with him and become pregnant. And God killed everyone but these three because they weren't wicked.

Do you believe that story? Because it's in the Bible.

You know what hearsay is? It's information gathered by one person from another which the first person was not himself a witness. You know why it's generally in admissible? Because of the inherent problems with reliability.

The Bible not only has hearsay problems (big ones considering the story of Adam and Eve would have been written thousands of years later) but translation problems. Writing in Greek translating from other languages and the Greek translated into English. Phil Robertson's quote of Paul's letter for instance, he didn't mention homosexuality. There was no word for this. However what he was referring to was a practice of the Greeks whereby adult men used boys as their sex partners. Screwing a 12 year old boy is very different than a consenting adult relationship but that doesn't stop old Phil from equating the two. The fact that Paul, in the same letter, wrote against men having long hair was also ignored by old Phil.

Jesus spoke in a parables. His words were not written contemporaneously to his speaking. Decades later and by men who weren't there. How accurate could this be? Consider the story of his resurrection. Matthew says there was an angel. Mark says there was a young man. Luke says there were two men. John says there were two angels. So which is it? Not all could be true.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Jesus spoke in parables during his own ministry, what would be different about him referring to past biblical allegory as a method of teaching? Of course he would know whether they were real or not, but that may or may not influence his use of them in his preaching.

---

He did speak in parables and usually when he did, he didn't refer to people by name. Plus, when he speaks about people like Jonah who has an entire book about him in the Old Testament, how would one occlude that he ls speaking about him in an allegorical sense and not in a real one?

quote:

---

Jesus talked about righteous Abel's blood crying from the ground and obvious reference to his brother Cain killing him. He spoke about the prophet Jonah more than once and even mentioned," Jonah and the whale." Jesus also spoke about Noah. All of these are very real Old Testament people and Jesus referred to them in context. How is this in any way, ambiguous?

---

Because the entire Bible is ambiguous. A huge portion of its verses can be interpreted in multiple ways.

It is a curated collection of books, translated from their original forms, which were originally written by men who were transcribing stories and legends that had been passed down for a few thousand years. How can any of it be taken literally?

quote:

---

All too often your "apostles" preform conclusions based on funding availability. Then they attempt to support those conclusions with contrivance, rather than test them with question and experiment.

---

My "apostles" were doing so in the 60's, long before it was fashionable or the forces you speak of were in effect.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that if you take an honest look at the MONEY as it pertains to climate science, the MONEY is EASILY on the side of energy companies. The motive has ALWAYS been there. In light of who really has the motive and power in the realm of climate science its a wonder we're even having this discussion. There is no comparison.

quote:

---

My "apostles" were doing so in the 60's

---

Very true. And they gave us 'The coming ice age'.

quote:

---

Very true. And they gave us 'The coming ice age'.

---

Actually a study of scientific literature from the time found that the vast majority of peer reviewed papers pointed to AGW. But hey, its pretty obvious that with this crowd, if you can't attack the message you'll attack the messenger so whats the use.

quote:

---

It is a curated collection of books, translated from their original forms, which were originally written by men who were transcribing stories and legends that had been passed down for a few thousand years. How can any of it be taken literally?

---

Easy. Jesus the disciples and the early church all believed it to be literal where it's meant to be taken literally.