A chance to show the world that you are not just racist fundamentalist nut jobs

[Dr.Who]

It may be symbolic eh?

So you don't know if it is literal or symbolic?

Right.

That is highly supportive of your claim that the bible is evidence

[/QUOTE]

The bible contains both poetic portions and literal portions. The existence of the poetic portions does not diminish the testimony of the literal ones. The poetic portions support he themes of the literal ones.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient.

They are logically incompatible.

Omniscience requires everything to fixed so that it can be known eg the future must be unchangable otherwise it cannot be known

If it is fixed it cannot be changed so he can't be omnipotent.

If it isn't fixed he can't know it and so isn't omniscient

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

How can you distinguish the literal from the poetic?

You can't make your mind up on the flood story.

What about the virgin birth.

Resurrection

Walking on water.

Turning water into wine

Etc

Are they poetic or literal?

And how do you know?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Lots of the bible's stories were literal until science came a long and suddenly they were poetic.

How many more will succumb?

 

[Dr.Who]

How can you distinguish the literal from the poetic?

Sometimes it is easy and sometimes it is hard.

How can you tell if light is a particle or a wave?

You can't make your mind up on the flood story.

It is not that easy. I think most of it is literal but there is a lot of justified interpretation involved. Still there are many other passages that are easy to interpret.

What about the virgin birth.

My personal thoughts do not change reality. It was what it was. I think it was literal. So what?

Resurrection

Walking on water.

Turning water into wine

I think literal. They are called miracles. The claim for miracles does not disqualify them as being true. Unless one has an anti-supernatural bias and relies on tautolgical or circular arguments

And how do you know?

We have to use our minds the best we can. Just like we evalauate the evidence in science to sort out the good evidence from the bad.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your book of evidence seems woefully lacking in clarity.

I wonder why god couldn't just tell it like is

 

[Dr.Who]

Lots of the bible's stories were literal until science came a long and suddenly they were poetic.

How many more will succumb?

Not only is that just not true. (for example the Talmud claims that the days of creation were not literal long before any of this debate came up) But if it were then it would make no difference. Interpretations of data change but that does not mean that the data is wrong.

If the amount of changing interpretation of data meant anything then science has changed it's interpretation of data far more than religion has.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think that for the purpose of normal conversation the lack of evidence for god's existence and the inaccuracy of the one book backing him up it is fare to say that god does not exist.

Poeple believe in lots of nutty stuff so it is no surprise they believe this tuff but it is nutty nevertheless

 

[Dr.Who]

I think that for the purpose of normal conversation the lack of evidence for god's existence and the inaccuracy of the one book backing him up it is fare to say that god does not exist.

Poeple believe in lots of nutty stuff so it is no surprise they believe this tuff but it is nutty nevertheless

Lack of evidence is still no evidence.

And which inaccuracy would that be?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The bible is not evidence

Sorry

 

[GenSeneca]

it is fare to say that god does not exist.

Where is your proof?

Oh, you have none? Then admit you take this position of belief based entirely on faith... as an Anti-Theist.

 

[Not Amused]

Where is your proof?

Oh, you have none? Then admit you take this position of belief based entirely on faith... as an Anti-Theist.

Touche!

 

[bododie]

Go on, put me out of my misery and give me some examples.

I Did give you one: Pakistan. Here's another one: Israel. Here's another one: Zimbabwe. Want more?

 

[Dr.Who]

The bible is not evidence

Sorry

If ten people witness a murder then the testimony of all of them is evidence.

If they give conflicting testimony all of it is still evidence. If half of them lie half of the time it is still evidence. If half of them say things that fly in the face of what the investigators thought before they come into the crime scene it is still evidence. All data is evidence.

It is up to the investigators to sift through the evidence and decide what to accept and what to throw out.

But they have to have rules so that their own biases don't get in the way.

The empirical method was created for just that purpose. To reduce bias.

Logic is also a method to evaluate evidence and reduce bias. The empirical method relies on logic. Logic is a foundation of the empirical method.

Logic tells us that you can't ask a question that you already have made up an answer for.

So if the question is "Is there a supernatural?" then you cannot start with the assumption that there is not.

And the empirical method does start with that assumption. It is disqualified from being used to evaluate the supernatural.

Fortunately, logic is more foundational than the empirical method and it can still be used to ask the question.

 

[Andy]

Dawkins, why do you continually post stuff with no evidence, no support, nothing that backs your claims, and yet complain about "abuse" when people point out the empty lame arguments you have?

You keep claiming you have a scientific approach, without giving any scientific evidence. You then make illogical argument of proof that God doesn't exist because you have no evidence. Which is the same as your lame US is bombing civilians constantly, and we're stealing oil and all this other garbage, none of which you provide any support for.

You are no different than the Religious people you are against. You are just an Atheist who believes in fairy tales of your own choosing. Same empty faith-based non-evidence approach you claim others have.

Meanwhile, I have detailed several clear evidences for God. Not one of which you can answer or even formulate a response too.

If you have some evidence for anything you claim, show it. Provide the documentation you claim others do not have. You shoot off your mouth, and never back it up. Reminds me of some of the idiots I had to deal with way back in high school. Loud and arrogant, but otherwise intellectually bankrupt.