---

If Christians are going to insert their religious beliefs into politics or their criticisms/judgements of other people, why should they not have to prove it?

I could say that I have faith that Jews are detrimental to society because I've read Mein Kampf,and that may (sadly) be more believable/based on evidence than what Christians profess.

The problem with believing something based on faith is that in Christianity, faith and fact do not co-exist. It should not ultimately come down to faith. It should come down to fact. And if truth be told, more facts point to the idea that Christian beliefs are untrue.  

Saying "it all comes down to faith" is saying that it's okay if people are entirely delusional, as long as they are faithfully delusional.

---

Similarly, if you are going to make a judgement, shouldn't you have to prove it? The problem with your assertion is that you open yourself up to a wide range of criticisms from anyone who has ever made a normative statement.

If you think the rest of the world, outside of what religions and religious people say, is based entirely on fact then you are living a lie my friend.

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 9:09 pm on April 23, 2012

---

 If Christians are going to insert their religious beliefs into politics or their criticisms/judgements of other people, why should they not have to prove it?  

 I could say that I have faith that Jews are detrimental to society because I've read Mein Kampf,and that may (sadly) be more believable/based on evidence than what Christians profess.  

 The problem with believing something based on faith is that in Christianity, faith and fact do not co-exist. It should not ultimately come down to faith. It should come down to fact. And if truth be told, more facts point to the idea that Christian beliefs are untrue.

 Saying "it all comes down to faith" is saying that it's okay if people are entirely delusional, as long as they are faithfully delusional.  

---

Similarly, if you are going to make a judgement, shouldn't you have to prove it? The problem with your assertion is that you open yourself up to a wide range of criticisms from anyone who has ever made a normative statement.  

If you think the rest of the world, outside of what religions and religious people say, is based entirely on fact then you are living a lie my friend.

---

I've been proving my point for this entire post.

I can begin arguing that god doesn't exist. But then again I'm not the one on street corners preaching at people to convert, and I'm not in the ruling majority.

So your argument is really invalid. But no, I honestly do not think that it is my job to prove whether or not Christianity is true. It is such an impossible concept that it is up to the delusional/faithful ones to prove it.
I stand behind science, a field and way of thinking about life and the origins of the universe that has taken significant steps towards validation.
As an individual it should not be up to me to collect and distribute that information. I could do that, sure, but why waste the time when the information is open to the public?
But my point is: as a whole, the scientific community has done a hell of a lot more to prove themselves than the Christian community.
Waving a Bible around and saying "I'm right because the answers are in here!" is ineffective.

-------
///////////////////

---

Similarly, if you are going to make a judgement, shouldn't you have to prove it? The problem with your assertion is that you open yourself up to a wide range of criticisms from anyone who has ever made a normative statement.    

If you think the rest of the world, outside of what religions and religious people say, is based entirely on fact then you are living a lie my friend.  

I've been proving my point for this entire post.  

I can begin arguing that god doesn't exist. But then again I'm not the one on street corners preaching at people to convert, and I'm not in the ruling majority.  

So your argument is really invalid. But no, I honestly do not think that it is my job to prove whether or not Christianity is true. It is such an impossible concept that it is up to the delusional/faithful ones to prove it.  
I stand behind science, a field and way of thinking about life and the origins of the universe that has taken significant steps towards validation.
As an individual it should not be up to me to collect and distribute that information. I could do that, sure, but why waste the time when the information is open to the public?
But my point is: as a whole, the scientific community has done a hell of a lot more to prove themselves than the Christian community.
Waving a Bible around and saying "I'm right because the answers are in here!" is ineffective.

---

If this was a fair representation of Christians, I might take you seriously. Furthermore, your distinction between science and faith is worrying. Clearly one can believe in science and be a Christian, so thats a false dichotomy right there.

I wasnt asking you to prove that Christianity is false, I was saying that the logical consequence of your previous claim render all normative judgments invalid. I guess you just skipped over that part because you chose not to address it.  

Post edited at 5:47 pm on April 23, 2012 by RandomThought

By "normative judgements" do you mean (essentially) judgments of right and wrong? Because if so, you're pulling in another irrelevant argument. You're not differentiating between judgments of morality, and judgements about fact and fiction. I mean a normative judgment would be saying that murder is wrong. And we can say that because there is a general consensus that murder goes against fundamental human nature. But the question of whether or not Christianity is "right or wrong" is impossible. It's such a broad concept. And it's not even the same thing. You cannot find "facts" about why murder is wrong. But there are facts or at least evidence-based scientific hypotheses that refute Christianity or the concept of god.

-------
///////////////////

---

It's a fair representation of some Christians. I know some Christians also believe in science. But a large number of Christians interpret the Bible literally. And those were the group I was criticizing. I'm much more supportive of the group that recognizes science. Because the Bible is supposed to be "absolute proof," a true Christian would, theoretically, interpret the Bible literally. In my opinion that is the "normal" and "true" type of Christian. It would be ridiculous for either of us to say that all Christians believe one way or all atheists believe one way. I'm not sure why you jumped to that conclusion, or decided to turn that into a talking point.

---

Due to the nature of the Bible, no educated Christian I know does that. So, your example is a strawman, because Christians wouldn't theoretically interpret the Bible literally. Give me one good reason why.

---

By "normative judgements" do you mean (essentially) judgments of right and wrong? Because if so, you're pulling in another irrelevant argument. You're not differentiating between judgments of morality, and judgements about fact and fiction. I mean a normative judgment would be saying that murder is wrong. And we can say that because there is a general consensus that murder goes against fundamental human nature. But the question of whether or not Christianity is "right or wrong" is impossible. It's such a broad concept. And it's not even the same thing. You cannot find "facts" about why murder is wrong. But there are facts or at least evidence-based scientific hypotheses that refute Christianity or the concept of god.

---

No, I mean normative.
And what are these facts?

I'm not getting into the facts that refute the idea of god or the Christian concepts of the origins of life/universe. This has already taken up too much of my time.
We can start, for one, with the age of the universe/Earth.
According to the Bible, it is roughly 6,000-8,000 years old.
But according to science and evidence like carbon dating, the universe/Earth is roughly 4.5 billions years old.

-------
///////////////////

---

I'm not getting into the facts that refute the idea of god or the Christian concepts of the origins of life/universe. This has already taken up too much of my time.
We can start, for one, with the age of the universe/Earth.
According to the Bible, it is roughly 6,000-8,000 years old.

---

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 12:56 pm on April 24, 2012

---

I'm not getting into the facts that refute the idea of god or the Christian concepts of the origins of life/universe. This has already taken up too much of my time.
We can start, for one, with the age of the universe/Earth.
According to the Bible, it is roughly 6,000-8,000 years old.

---

Would you please show me where in the Bible it says that?

---

It doesn't say that, you idiot.
Biblical scholars compiled a chronological history of the Bible/world. And based on the life spans of humans/study of Biblical family trees, they reached this conclusion.  

http://www.bibleworldhistory.com/

This type of bullshit.

Post edited at 11:09 am on April 24, 2012 by Waddiwasi

-------
///////////////////

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:04 pm on April 24, 2012

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 12:56 pm on April 24, 2012

---

I'm not getting into the facts that refute the idea of god or the Christian concepts of the origins of life/universe. This has already taken up too much of my time.  
We can start, for one, with the age of the universe/Earth.  
According to the Bible, it is roughly 6,000-8,000 years old.

---

Would you please show me where in the Bible it says that?

---

 

It doesn't say that, you idiot.  
Biblical scholars compiled a chronological history of the Bible/world. And based on the life spans of humans/study of Biblical family trees, they reached this conclusion.    

http://www.bibleworldhistory.com/  

This type of bullshit.

---

How long is a "day"?

Post edited at 11:12 am on April 24, 2012 by Forever Angel

-------
Life  isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's learning how to dance in the rain
"Work is not an end in itself;
there must always be time enough for love."

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 1:08 pm on April 24, 2012

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:04 pm on April 24, 2012

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 12:56 pm on April 24, 2012

---

I'm not getting into the facts that refute the idea of god or the Christian concepts of the origins of life/universe. This has already taken up too much of my time.  
 We can start, for one, with the age of the universe/Earth.  
 According to the Bible, it is roughly 6,000-8,000 years old.

---

Would you please show me where in the Bible it says that?

---

It doesn't say that, you idiot.
Biblical scholars compiled a chronological history of the Bible/world. And based on the life spans of humans/study of Biblical family trees, they reached this conclusion.

http://www.bibleworldhistory.com/

This type of bullshit.

---

You said "according to the Bible", idiot. If you can't find it in the Bible, it's NOT according to the Bible.

How long is a "day"?

---

It is according to the Bible.
I'm assuming you can add, right?
So, adding the life-spans of Adam's descendants would theoretically give you the rough age of Earth.

And that's a good point.
There is no "set" answer for this.
But according to the Bible, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1: somewhere in the 1-5 or 6 range.


-------
///////////////////

---

There are educated and uneducated Christians. Some Christians interpret the Bible literally and some of them do not. I know Christians that interpret the Bible both literally and metaphorically. But in this specific instance I am referring to Christians that interpret the Bible literally. And just because you don't know of a Christian that thinks this way, doesn't mean that those Christians don't exist. They're the majority in the Southern United States. And one reason why? Because the Bible presents itself as absolute truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "we say that God created the world in 6 days, but since science contradicts this, feel free to interpret it metaphorically."

---

If you look at the Bible and how it came about, it is part of the nature of it that it cannot be the spoken word of God. Hence, you are attacking a strawman, as these people who interpret the Bible literally are pretty much parodies of themselves, and are not to be taken seriously by any rational creature. It is much more conducive to debate to address the claims that are not perpetuated by morons.

---

I'm not getting into the facts that refute the idea of god or the Christian concepts of the origins of life/universe. This has already taken up too much of my time.
We can start, for one, with the age of the universe/Earth.
According to the Bible, it is roughly 6,000-8,000 years old.
But according to science and evidence like carbon dating, the universe/Earth is roughly 4.5 billions years old.

---

Like FA said, it does not say that in the Bible.
Furthermore, are you familiar with the concept of exegesis? It is assumed, again, by sensible people, that certain parts of the Bible are not for literal interpretation. Furthermore, if you are talking about concepts of time in the Bible, at the time of writing, it is anachronistic to measure concepts of time understood in the Biblical era by our standards, another strawman argument.

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 6:56 pm on April 24, 2012

---

There are educated and uneducated Christians. Some Christians interpret the Bible literally and some of them do not. I know Christians that interpret the Bible both literally and metaphorically. But in this specific instance I am referring to Christians that interpret the Bible literally. And just because you don't know of a Christian that thinks this way, doesn't mean that those Christians don't exist. They're the majority in the Southern United States. And one reason why? Because the Bible presents itself as absolute truth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "we say that God created the world in 6 days, but since science contradicts this, feel free to interpret it metaphorically."

---

If you look at the Bible and how it came about, it is part of the nature of it that it cannot be the spoken word of God. Hence, you are attacking a strawman, as these people who interpret the Bible literally are pretty much parodies of themselves, and are not to be taken seriously by any rational creature. It is much more conducive to debate to address the claims that are not perpetuated by morons.

 

---

I'm not getting into the facts that refute the idea of god or the Christian concepts of the origins of life/universe. This has already taken up too much of my time.  
 We can start, for one, with the age of the universe/Earth.  
 According to the Bible, it is roughly 6,000-8,000 years old.  
 But according to science and evidence like carbon dating, the universe/Earth is roughly 4.5 billions years old.

---

Like FA said, it does not say that in the Bible.
Furthermore, are you familiar with the concept of exegesis? It is assumed, again, by sensible people, that certain parts of the Bible are not for literal interpretation. Furthermore, if you are talking about concepts of time in the Bible, at the time of writing, it is anachronistic to measure concepts of time understood in the Biblical era by our standards, another strawman argument.

---

I am aware of everything you just mentioned.
However, I was talking about the Christians that I personally have mostly been in contact with/surrounded by.

There are various opinions of how to interpret the Bible.
The metaphorical view is perpetuated by Christians wishing to keep their creation myths relevant and to combat scientific evidence/theory by arguing about the meaning of a day, and other things. Once again, this is an example of Christian thinking. Drawing conclusions first, and then scrambling to find (or not even bothering to find) supporting evidence. While rational thinking gathers information and then draws a logical conclusion.

But there are many, many impossible things listed in the Bible. The fact that Christians actually believed they happened is both laughable and discouraging. it simply doesn't make sense.

-------
///////////////////

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:12 pm on April 24, 2012

---

How long is a "day"?

---

And that's a good point.
There is no "set" answer for this.
But according to the Bible, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1: somewhere in the 1-5 or 6 range.

---

So since there is no "set" answer, how can the time of creation be calculated?

I understand that you're using the "literalist" 6 day argument, but, that argument would fail with most Christians that I know.

-------
Life  isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's learning how to dance in the rain
"Work is not an end in itself;
there must always be time enough for love."

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 1:31 pm on April 24, 2012

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:12 pm on April 24, 2012

---

How long is a "day"?

---

And that's a good point.  
 There is no "set" answer for this.  
 But according to the Bible, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1: somewhere in the 1-5 or 6 range.

---

Yes, I know that part.  

So since there is no "set" answer, how can the time of creation be calculated?  

I understand that you're using the "literalist" 6 day argument, but, that argument would fail with most Christians that I know.

---

Because you are grasping at straws to validate your silly beliefs. How can you prove the dissemination of population/race? If Adam and Eve were of one race, how are there different races now? How can you validate: speaking snakes/donkeys, the sun standing still, the flood, ridiculously long life spans, Jesus' "miracles," etc.  

The Bible was an attempt to explain the unexplainable. We have since explained many things ourselves (with science), but trying to make an antiquated and impossible creation myth fit into our current knowledge of science and  the way that the universe works is idiotic. The story of god is slowly degenerating. It's pathetic to see people like you try to explain away all of the Bible's vast impossibilities with arguments like "maybe the concept of a day was different in the Bible." Fucking ridiculous. The Bible is not divinely inspired. It was a fairytale written by primitive men who had no knowledge of how the world actually was, or worked.

-------
///////////////////

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 3:43 pm on April 24, 2012

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 1:31 pm on April 24, 2012

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:12 pm on April 24, 2012

---

How long is a "day"?

---

And that's a good point.
  There is no "set" answer for this.
  But according to the Bible, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Genesis 1: somewhere in the 1-5 or 6 range.

---

Yes, I know that part.

 So since there is no "set" answer, how can the time of creation be calculated?

 I understand that you're using the "literalist" 6 day argument, but, that argument would fail with most Christians that I know.

---

Because you are grasping at straws to validate your silly beliefs. How can you prove the dissemination of population/race? If Adam and Eve were of one race, how are there different races now? How can you validate: speaking snakes/donkeys, the sun standing still, the flood, ridiculously long life spans, Jesus' "miracles," etc.

The Bible was an attempt to explain the unexplainable. We have since explained many things ourselves (with science), but trying to make an antiquated and impossible creation myth fit into our current knowledge of science and the way that the universe works is idiotic. The story of god is slowly degenerating. It's pathetic to see people like you try to explain away all of the Bible's vast impossibilities with arguments like "maybe the concept of a day was different in the Bible." Fucking ridiculous. The Bible is not divinely inspired. It was a fairytale written by primitive men who had no knowledge of how the world actually was, or worked.

---

You seem to believe that science and religion are in opposition. Once upon a time there might have been some validity to that claim, but not now. Science does not even attempt to disprove religion. It merely fills in the blanks.

You don't understand the Bible and your only defense of your own beliefs is to denigrate it and those who believe there is a truth to be found in it.

-------
Life  isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's learning how to dance in the rain
"Work is not an end in itself;
there must always be time enough for love."