Quality over quantity, bitch.
8/31/2009 5:57:29 PM
The books of the bible weren't published in a peer-reviewed journal....
8/31/2009 5:59:25 PM
I want to introduce you to my friends Testable, Repeatable and Falsifiable.
Science isn't about listening to what someone might have said on the subject some time long ago.
8/31/2009 5:59:54 PM
But those books in your bible also contradict each other, thereby proving they are all false. That's using your own logic.
8/31/2009 6:02:17 PM
And many of those books discuss completely different things; for instance, how does the Song of Songs prove that the Bible is accurate?
8/31/2009 6:05:57 PM
There seems to be this idea that is universal across all fundie minds, the fact that something is written down is evidence that it's true. I guess that's why its so easy to convince them of nonsence, all you need is something that does not directly contradict what they already believe, written down or spoken in an authoratative sounding way.
8/31/2009 6:07:23 PM
The 66 books that were included in the Bible by a vote centuries after the events they claim to document are not scientific evidence. Nor are they scientifically or historically accurate.
Get over it already!
8/31/2009 6:10:05 PM
I read about the afterlife
Well, it's actually only 40 different accounts...many of the books have repeat authors.
8/31/2009 6:18:05 PM
So... the bible is evidence that the bible is true?
66 different accounts of what, exactly? Revelation describes something far different from Genesis. And endless geneologies of so & so begat so & so, who begat so & so don't really give an account of anything other than someone's family tree.
8/31/2009 6:34:33 PM
8/31/2009 6:51:06 PM
You forget that science is replicable. That's what makes them different; the Bible is made of 66 accounts of (inconsistent) stories that are physically implausible and impossible to test and verify. Experiments are made to be tried and retried.
Learn how science works.
Edit: Zabimaru beat me to it.
8/31/2009 6:52:30 PM
... and when two accounts differ wildly, then more people need to repeat the experiment with stricter controls. I'll trust the un-supernatural parts of the Bible when you repeat human history in front of my eyes.
8/31/2009 7:24:54 PM
Bender Bending Rodriguez
Okay, so how did Judas die?
8/31/2009 7:30:30 PM
If I formed a cult to carry a message of hatred and death and got 66 members to join, would that make my cult's message any more reaonsble?
I see what you did there. If enough people make baseless contributions towards something, then it possesses some form of validity to you. Sounds like good logic to me...
8/31/2009 7:32:44 PM
8/31/2009 8:05:16 PM
So you just need to get 66 friends together and write a volume of 67 books describing your God, Zarquon. That will make it true, right?
8/31/2009 8:06:27 PM
Because those "66 different accounts" don't always agree with each other, and there's no way to decide which is correct? Because there's not way to decide if any of them are correct? A scientific experiment is not equivalent to a static ancient document.
When someone publishes a scientific paper in a journal, I can read it, evaluate the claims logically and in the light of other science I already know and decide whether it might be true. Also, that document lays out what was done so I may repeat the study/experiment for myself.
Can I do this with the bible? If I try to bring in outside evidence that contradicts what it says I'm told "you can only interpret scripture with other scripture" and "it's the inerrant word of God". If my evidence agreed with the bible it would be welcome. That's not how science works; all evidence for or against a claim is welcome.
8/31/2009 8:15:32 PM
"Why do you trust a scientific experiment when many scientists claim it's true, but you don't trust that the 66 books of the Bible are accurate?"
1) Scientific experiments match observable reality. Most of it I could observe for myself if I were so inclined and had access to the appropriate equipment. Your Bible neither matches what I've observed of reality nor can I view any of the events myself. There also appears to be zero evidence that any of the more outlandish events ever happened.
2) Your 66 books present no evidence of any kind. They rely on speculation, conjecture, guesswork, fantasy, wishful thinking, subjective experiences and anecdotal "evidence". To add to that, they often contradict one another on the most basic "facts" they present.
Scientists, on the other hand, carefully record their data, how they obtained their data, how to replicate the events that produced that data and they ensure that the data was obtained in the most objective, empirical manner possible. Given the proper resources anyone that wishes to do so can replicate the experiment and, if the hypothesis/theory is valid, will obtain the same results. The same cannot be said of your 66 books.
8/31/2009 8:17:57 PM
That's 66 DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS THAT IT'S TRUE.Why do you trust a scientific experiment when many scientists claim it's true, but you don't trust that the 66 books of the Bible are accurate?
But the books in the bible are not consistent with one another. The scientist almost always are.
8/31/2009 8:25:10 PM
We're not even talking all of the books having the same purpose. Some are exhortations to social justice (e.g. Amos, Micah); some are compilations of ancestral wisdom (Proverbs); some are, depending on your viewpoint, teachings, history, or propaganda (Genesis, Judges, Parapolimenon); etc.
Besides, think about what you're saying. Job is primarily an account of its own truth, before any of the other books were written? You may want to rethink this one...
8/31/2009 9:11:17 PM
The FBI is controlling your thoughts via your toaster.
That's some mighty powerful fail you have there.
When somebody performs a scientific experiment, more and more people test it until we can see that the results are the same.
So close and yet so far away.
8/31/2009 9:23:08 PM
Except each of those 66 accounts says something different from what the other 65 accounts say. They aren't 66 accounts of the same thing, they're 66 parts of a greater whole. Furthermore, several authors wrote multiple books.
8/31/2009 9:42:53 PM
Tom S. Fox
Wait - I sent this in an eternity ago. What did it take so long?
8/31/2009 10:00:58 PM
66 books none of which agree with each other. Only 4 deal with Jesus, and if you take the other things that are mentioned going on at the time, there's a 100 year spread regarding when Jesus was born.
8/31/2009 10:06:50 PM
Anecdotal evidence is not accepted in any court. Even when it's in written form. So there...
P. S. Who could peer-review the bible? Apostles and kings of Zeus and Thor?
8/31/2009 10:27:13 PM