The debate "The christain bible is still relavent" was started by
June 2, 2016, 7:23 pm.
By the way, dalton7532 is disagreeing with this statement.
23 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Neopatriarch posted 5 arguments, dalton7532 posted 3 arguments, neveralone posted 14 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 1 argument, PoliticsAsUsual posted 16 arguments, Ethan8336 posted 2 arguments, neveralone posted 9 arguments, dalton7532 posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
The_Debater, SwaggerPoptart, JLabang123, moneybagboyz, Neopatriarch, neveralone, RogueAmerican, Blue_ray, sabrina, Matthew_Daniel and 13 visitors agree.
dalton7532, Apollo, Nemiroff, historybuff, CoffeeWhite1, RyanWakefield, PoliticsAsUsual, Ethan8336, arpita00 and 6 visitors disagree.
Sorry guys. I was thinking a little wrong, and I thought science can be used as a adjective with proof, as many sources where I get my information did the same. I did some research and found out where I went wrong. It was a common misconception that "scientific proof" was a thing that I admit too, and is slang that I actually took as not slang.
if dalton doesnt like being insulted, perhaps next time he won't insult people himself.
don't worry about it man. does it matter he was mistaken and it has been fixed no need for name calling it takes away from ur argument.
if it can't be experimented on or verified objectively, it's fiction. that's the point.
a history book is filled with facts, all of which verified, although the winner can choose to leave things out or twist an interpretation, the series of events are true. all of them. unless every event in the bible, from the destruction of sodom, to the global flood, to the 6 day creation is proven true without resorting to metaphors, it's not a historical text.
he's a dumbass not just because he got the wrong definition but because he followed the wrong definition with calling me an idiot.
it's one thing to be mistaken, it's another to pat yourself on the back while insulting your opponent when you don't even know what the hell is being discussed.
I wouldn't call him dumb. he probably didn't see it
how does this help anyone's argument since it can't be experimented on?
thank you never alone.
and good job defining the wrong term dumbass @dalton
the point is that scientific proof has to follow the scientific method. logic is not valid in any way in science, only observable evidence and strictly controlled experimentation. anything established by these methods may have been modified, but has NEVER EVER been refuted.
"proof is not an argument." - Politics
I think he wants a scientific proof definition.
Yet, you will find a way to argue with that very definition I provided.
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."- Proof
You are an idiot.
I was trying to give u a best possible answer actually but that ok
a conclusion drawn from a repeatable observation
that was not a definition but a comparison to mathematic proof that no one here is making. I was asking for your definition of scientific proof, not a copy paste of a source. please, type the definition, not a 5 page article.
without comparing it to anything else, what is your definition of a scientific proof. please don't take the easy way out.
I wasn't really I was joking. how have I not addressed it?
they were already made.
ok. please define science and scientific proof.
and what is the difference between science and a logic based argument?
sorry to make you "squirm" but sometimes if you don't lay things out bluntly people will continue to dismiss it with addressing it... as you have been doing.
it would have been nice if your reply didn't just include "yes we do." you had plenty of opportunities to actually show that you do instead of making empty claims.
ok thanks for the attacks they helped u a bunch while I squirmed on the floor.(sarcasm)haha. but I did not mean any of that. before u start pushing ur idea of what I said it might be easier to ask.
do you? cause I got one person claiming that science is logic... confusing it with a priori philosophy, which is the opposite of science. another person claiming there was scientific proof for a flat earth and other untested presumed beliefs.
you keep saying yes you do know what science is, but I don't believe you. all your statements prove otherwise. very sad.
also we do know what science is. its the potato gun! haha but seriously yes we do history proves as such so I would prefer if u would stop insulting us then asking for our help latter because it's going to have to be one or the other.
so what parts are fiction like u say? I know none
are you saying that the Netflix show about George Washington's spies ("turn" was the name) is a historical text because it is loosely based on events that happened despite making up a majority of the specific details?
geez I only though that Americans were uneducated in what science is. I was not expecting them to not understand the difference between a scholarly text and a work that merely mentions a few general true details. do you believe "a brief history of the world part 1" (the Mel Brooks film) should be taught in history class as well? I named many real historic events from the roman empire to the inquisition. obviously it must all be true!!!
does the fact that I got a few general details right mean we can ignore all the unverified and sometimes debunked parts? a historic text can't be half fact and half fiction. it's either all fact, or its fiction.
also historic text just has to say something in history that happened. the Bible does this all the time
not as a historic text it's not!
so what's ur argument that the Bible is not relevant?
proof is not an argument. and science is not logic. this shows a fundamental ignorance of what science is.
proof is physical evidence. not an argument. and science is a process that has been used to disprove logic like "the earth is obviously flat and stationary" which seems logical, but is wrong.
we really need to work on the education system in this country.
an argument is based on logic. science is based on proof. you had everything all kinds of screwed up.
there isn't one
I would agree the Christian Bible is still relevant. It is a personal moral code that many people choose to believe freely to be closer with their God. I see no reason why it would not be relevant.
with ur info I agree with u.
I would not state that God does not have scientific proof, merely due to the fact that proof is an argument and science is just logic. Basically, you are stating the existence of God has no logical reasoning behind it, which is utterly incorrect. However, I see the point you are trying to make.
also don't worry u don't have to believe in him for him to love.
what evidence? let's say it not. why shouldn't u? let's say it is. what in there isn't good to learn and follow?
hey u were the one that was talking about it not me. also if something doesn't have scientific proof behind it YET does that make it any less real. like gravity for example. at one time we had no proof it exist. does that make gravity any less true or real?
who cares! If people believed you raped someone yesterday does that mean it's true? what "people" say is irrelevant to whether something is or isn't whatever we are talking about. in this case is scientific proof.
your entire comment essentially said nothing. so then we are back at my post of if it doesn't have proof BEHIND THE BOOK, it's not historical or any form of academia.
We are not even sure this God even exist or not and most likley no because of the scientifc evidence today so why should we listen to a 2000 year old text that could probaly be a hoax
It must of mistyped on that part because I meant people used to believe it was. I do not.
I said people thought there was scientific proof
from your search.
why are you citing a search instead of an actual source. thats like making a claim and then telling me to go to the library if I want to verify it! lol
I'm being serious because you said there was "scientific" proof for flat earth!
haha why so serious? anyways that was just an example. https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-att-us&site=&source=hp&ei=MXI7WPWuOIu7jwTUt5CACw&q=stuff+with+scientific+proof+proven+wrong&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.41l18.104.22.168.13322.214.171.124.126.96.36.1990.593.2-1j1.2.0....0...1..64.mobile-gws-hp..0.2.401.3.7hdcwgKYH7w
the issue with flossing is that there WAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. a long term study of people's flossing habits and it's long term effects takes a long time and a lot of money for something that isn't a big deal. therefore Noone bothered.
do you think flossing was suddenly found to be bad and turned everything on its head? No! someone figured out that they didn't actually test the theory (aka no scientific evidence) and decided they got a headline that can sell copies to people incapable of googling. did you bother googling? or did you just accept anything written as law?
what exactly was the "scientific" proof of a flat earth? hm?
haha nice try. yes I do. u want a more recent example. check out what doctors tell u. sometimes floss is good sometimes they say it does nothing both times they used scientific proof. is that simple enough for u?
there was never any "scientific proof" the world was flat. that was a run of the mill assumption. do you even know what scientific proof means? cause your last comment makes it clear you do not. and that is a sad thing.
@neo one can learn from a book, a book based on evidence. otherwise it is fiction, and no you cannot learn from fiction. ancient history is not the same as mythology. we didn't just make it up, it's based in archeological evidence. not JUST from a book.
I was replying to Ethan. he started I finished
Now you've just pivoted off the topic entirely.
Again, that's has to be true then for every ancient document. Did Alexander the Great exist? are you certain. Have you verified it without a book?
By this standard not only can you not learn ancient history, you cannot even learn from a book. Seems like a poor premise.
it is still relevant. why does there need to be more than one? there was scientific proof that the world was flat. obviously there proof was wrong. do u not think going to church is good?
Its not relevant because it teaches us to worship a single god with no scientific proof. Some of the ten commandments do not seem just either "Thou shalt honor the sabath day and keep it holy" there are plenty of people today that calls themselves christian but does not attend church regularly.
not that it can't be right. however, if I were to believe it it would be entirely on faith. even if the contents of the Bible are 100% accurate, it would not be a valid historical document until it is independently verified.
just because king David or Solomon existed does not mean they acted or did the things attributed to them in the bible.
many movies are set in real places like LA. just because the city is real does not mean the story was accurate. it would not make sense for the writers of the Bible to make up cities like some sort of science fiction writers.
the Bible is an excellent source of goals of things to look for, but not a good transcript of actual events.
Well, the Bible is filled with historical facts such as cities, nations, and people. That until recently we wouldn't know about in any other way. For example, when I was a kid secular people would refer to Jericho as a "fabled city". Since then the city has been discovered, complete with a fallen wall. Which is what the Bible recorded.
what historic value?
we have far more useful historic books with info that is not based on and/or buried beneath likely metaphorical tall tales and fables.
the moral aspect of jesus's teachings are still very relevant tho. we have an issues with abundant greed and a shortage of love for other people to this day.
You're overlooking it's historical value.
as a moral story to give hope to people? sure. anything more and it goes from useful to hindrance.