Meh. Both religious and non-religious people make presumptions about the other. I'm sure there are some Christians who find it irritating when Atheists assume they believe everything in the Bible to be literal truth.
I've generally given up on debating religion with anyone simply because it never concludes with anyone any the wiser. It's futile. I'll only challenge it if it infringes upon my life in some way.
I really don't presume all religious people to believe a literal interpretation of the bible and it would be pretty narrow-sighted for me to believe that. I argue to gain perspective on others ideas.
I've been a BIG debater of religion Vs reality myself on many sites for a long time.
My point was that if I could help any 'child' out there reading then it would be all worth it.
But after years of this I've grown tired of it too, my biggest concern was that very strongly minded religious people were not allowing their children to read my comments anyway!
By the way, regarding atheists debating about the obviously impossible literal truth of the bible.
Since the bible must be interpreted (and there are MANY variations of these) then quite obviously a child should never be given the bible. Geez, a child may actually believe it to be literal, that would be bad.
First of all, everyone's information comes from fallible sources, because there is no such thing as an infallible one, barring god (the absolute infallibility of whom is the reason for my disinterest). That something was derived from television or the internet does not automatically make it any less credible than information from literature or other people.
Secondly, you need to read up on the definition of "scientific theory". Try google, it works wonders. Or considering your aversion to completely legitimate information, read a book! Just don't patronize if you don't know any better. A theory is falsifiable body of principles based on phenomena that make relevant predictions of the phenomena and its relationships. That's it.
There is an abundance of proof for the Big Bang theory, and if you're trying to argue that it isn't indisputable, then that's absurd, because nothing in science is indisputable. That doesn't make it less valid. In fact, the power of the scientific method comes from the fact that no matter how much proof there is for a particular theory, one piece of solid conflicting evidence can dissolve the entire thing. Scientists actually work very hard to disprove all theories, and so far the Big Bang has held up. The theory that the Earth EXISTS is not indisputable. But the Big Bang theory, just like the theory that the Earth exists, is widely accepted among the scientific community. For the following reasons:
Based on elongating wavelengths of light emitted from distant masses, it follows that all planetary bodies are moving away from the Earth. Either the Earth is the ugliest planet in the universe, or the universe is expanding. To extend this trend backwards in time, combined with the structure of the universe, it was once much more compact than it is currently. To use a contrasting method, instead of seeing how much evidence there is to support the Big Bang, we can see how predictions of the theory correspond to real phenomena. Someone above mentioned microwave radiation, which, among other fundamental particles found throughout the universe which match the predictions of cosmic composition provided by the Big Bang, lends significant support to the theory.
Religious people always think I believe in the Big Bang Theory
← View full post
Meh. Both religious and non-religious people make presumptions about the other. I'm sure there are some Christians who find it irritating when Atheists assume they believe everything in the Bible to be literal truth.
I've generally given up on debating religion with anyone simply because it never concludes with anyone any the wiser. It's futile. I'll only challenge it if it infringes upon my life in some way.
--
ImmaculateLucifer
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Dad
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I really don't presume all religious people to believe a literal interpretation of the bible and it would be pretty narrow-sighted for me to believe that. I argue to gain perspective on others ideas.
I've been a BIG debater of religion Vs reality myself on many sites for a long time.
My point was that if I could help any 'child' out there reading then it would be all worth it.
But after years of this I've grown tired of it too, my biggest concern was that very strongly minded religious people were not allowing their children to read my comments anyway!
By the way, regarding atheists debating about the obviously impossible literal truth of the bible.
Since the bible must be interpreted (and there are MANY variations of these) then quite obviously a child should never be given the bible. Geez, a child may actually believe it to be literal, that would be bad.
--
mizeka
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
Another atheist who bases his facts on things he heard on TV or read online...
If you ever teach someone about big bang theory, at least remember to say that it's a THEORY and none of it has been actually proven.
Same thing with evolution...
You should read some ACTUAL scientific literature. And no, children's school books are not scientific literature.
--
flutterhigh
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
First of all, everyone's information comes from fallible sources, because there is no such thing as an infallible one, barring god (the absolute infallibility of whom is the reason for my disinterest). That something was derived from television or the internet does not automatically make it any less credible than information from literature or other people.
Secondly, you need to read up on the definition of "scientific theory". Try google, it works wonders. Or considering your aversion to completely legitimate information, read a book! Just don't patronize if you don't know any better. A theory is falsifiable body of principles based on phenomena that make relevant predictions of the phenomena and its relationships. That's it.
There is an abundance of proof for the Big Bang theory, and if you're trying to argue that it isn't indisputable, then that's absurd, because nothing in science is indisputable. That doesn't make it less valid. In fact, the power of the scientific method comes from the fact that no matter how much proof there is for a particular theory, one piece of solid conflicting evidence can dissolve the entire thing. Scientists actually work very hard to disprove all theories, and so far the Big Bang has held up. The theory that the Earth EXISTS is not indisputable. But the Big Bang theory, just like the theory that the Earth exists, is widely accepted among the scientific community. For the following reasons:
Based on elongating wavelengths of light emitted from distant masses, it follows that all planetary bodies are moving away from the Earth. Either the Earth is the ugliest planet in the universe, or the universe is expanding. To extend this trend backwards in time, combined with the structure of the universe, it was once much more compact than it is currently. To use a contrasting method, instead of seeing how much evidence there is to support the Big Bang, we can see how predictions of the theory correspond to real phenomena. Someone above mentioned microwave radiation, which, among other fundamental particles found throughout the universe which match the predictions of cosmic composition provided by the Big Bang, lends significant support to the theory.
Don't even get me started on evolution.
--
ImmaculateLucifer
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I was trying to say this earlier but I didn't know how.