Intelligent atheists only?

Question

I was just thinking how some of you say that the Bible is fake because men wrote it and crossed out what they didn't like, so what makes you so sure of science and its 'discoveries'? Are these not done by men also, who can also colour the'evidence' as they see fit, and assume at the point of no conclusive answer? Please, I require deep thinkers for my answers, people who have read my question and digested it sensibly, not the vent-heads who call "applesnacks" or other such thoughtless typings as answers.

Answer 1

These are people who "worship" knowledge and human intellect. They have made their own idol and they choose it over God.

They automatically "assume" that anything beyond their understanding must have a scientific explanation.

Without proof, they will reject that God exists, and they will automatically reject the written testimony of those who witnessed God's Signs and wonders and interaction with the world, because they were just men and of course Atheists believe that those who wrote the Bible did so for material gain.

If they actually knew "anything" about the authors of the Bible they would know this to be a blatant lie.

It's Pride that "man" could somehow discount what other "men" wrote because "man" wrote it and then turn to new writings by other "men" to support their position. It's complete hypocrisy. Their basis for rejection of Biblical writings...because they cannot understand it...since they cannot understand, they assume there must be a flaw in the Word. Who was it that said, "they destroy what they don't understand?"

Well, fortunate for the world, it is God's word and they can't destroy it. But they will certainly try.

By assuming God doesn't exist, they dismiss the power of God from the authoring of the Bible (the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of God), and therefore believe falsely that because it was physically written by men that it is fallible. It is ignorance to the utmost to believe that only things we can see are real. We cannot see wind, and we cannot see gravity, but we can witness the result of them and are affected by them. We cannot see God physically, but we can see Him in everything, every day if we look for Him. They choose instead to fabricate a solution that appeases their faulty expectations.

If they actually read the Bible with the assumption that God does exist, and with humility, and reverently, with an open heart and mind, then everything will begin to take shape, and they will begin to understand what they fail to now, but pride is difficult to overcome...and many of them are so bound by it...so enslaved to their own desires...pray for them. Please Lord help them to break their chains and lift the scales from their eyes. Amen.

I pray we can reach some of them...perhaps give them occasion to question their faith in science/evolution/whathave you, because in the end...Science without God "is" another religion that requires more faith than it takes to put trust in Almighty God.

God Bless you sister.

Answer 2

Science is self-correcting. What I mean by that is that every theory that is "proven" can be retested by anyone with the intelligence to understand it. There is nothing about God or religion that can be tested or proven.

Yes, it is true that some scientists make up evidence and data and make faulty conclusions. They are eventually caught and corrected. There was a time when people thought the world was flat. Because of many scientists data, we now accept as fact that the world is round. It does not come from just one source, it comes from many sources.

Science isn't alway correct, sometimes mistakes are made. But eventually, those mistakes can be corrected. If a mistake was made in the bible, what mechanism is there for correcting it?

Answer 3

They say the Bible is fake because they refuse to believe in God. Instead they claim science as the source of their reasoning and logic particularly evolutionary science. One thing I've noticed about athiests is they taut the Miller experiment like its the new gospel. In case you're not aware of that, the Miller experiment is where Miller combined certain chemicals that was believed to have formed early earth's atmosphere. He then gave these chemicals an electric charge and the result was that amino acids were created which are the building blocks of all life. Unfortunately this doesn't hold up because 1) Miller had a strict control over the experiment ,a control that would not have happened in nature 2) Scientist have since decided that the atmospheric chemicals Miller experimented with where not the chemicals that made up the atmosphere of early earth. They replicated the experiment using the new combination of chemicals they thought was more accurate and no amino acids were created.
Add this to the lack of transitional fossils, the lack of living transitional forms, the flaws of carbon dating, the complexity of DNA, RNA, cell structure, etc and evolution is a theory that crashes down on itself.

Answer 4

I'm not saying the Bible is "fake"; I'm just recognizing for what it is: a religious canon, not a history book.

There is a big difference between dogma and scientific conclusions. Science is self-correcting. Dogma is not. And when conclusions in science turn out to be wrong, that fact is pointed out by scientists and new science, not armchair theologians. Science's job is to use observations and the scientific method to come up with the best explanation for what we see. This includes publishing experiments and results that others can look up. You can't have "peer review" for faith, because spiritual experiences are based on subjective experiences and the addition of personal significance and interpretation.

I don't, however, throw dogma entirely out the window. I think it is a human invention that still serves certain purposes, particularly when it comes to personal spiritual beliefs. Having said that, I don't think dogma should be used to explain the physical world around us on an objective level, as that's not its purpose.

Answer 5

Science has the advantage of having self-correction built in. A finding that is the result of the researcher's biases is not replicated, and therefore falls out of the literature.

A classic example is the so-called "Mozart Effect", which apparently was nothing but artifact. Same with "cold fusion", and a more recent "desktop fusion" claim.

Individual research projects include other safeguards, such as double-blind studies, in which the design of the study prevents the researcher's biases from affecting the results. My own dissertation research failed to reveal the effect that I'd expected, and therefore has had no effect on the literature as a whole, despite my persistent belief that my idea was right.

But replication is far and away the main safeguard against subjectivity.

Note that the Bible has no such safeguards at all.

Answer 6

Science (the study of knowledge based on evidence) is transparent, reproducible, peer-reviewed, and self-correcting.

Being transparent, you can see every step ever taken by an experimenter or theorist, and this knowledge is available to all.

Being reproducible, you can reproduce the results of every experiment whenever you want just by doing it yourself.

Being peer-reviewed, only those ideas that stand up to the requirements of science (such as transparent and reproducible) are accepted by the community.

Being self-correcting, science is always up to date with the latest evidence; if new evidence comes out proving our old theories wrong, science gets rid of them in favor of new theories that fit the evidence.

Seriously though, don't trust me - how about you trust the connection we are speaking over, and the computer that you are using to access this connection, because they are both the result of science. Add to that list all of modern medicine and modern technology and you have quite a few good reasons to "trust" in science.

Ask yourself this: the next time you get really sick, are you going to the doctor or to Church?

Answer 7

You are right, as soon as God's message was written and interpeted down by humans, it forever became tainted with human fallibility.

However, science is not absolute and never claims to be 100% infallible and perfect. Where as religous scriptures do claim to be infabble and 100% truth and the word of God. If you look at history and the history of the scientific method, any scientific errors have always been self correcting where as religious scriptures are incapable self correcting because their claim of total infallibility.

So in conclusion science can be coloured by men, just as religon, however, because science never claims to be 100% and is self correcting and any scientific claim does not have the same life guiding and life changing influence religous scriptures can have, which if they are wrong can have profound effects on how human civilization progresses.

Answer 8

Because science just sound so much more believable. It is constantly expanding. We have more scientific knowledge now than we did 100 years ago. The bible is just the same old stuff; nothing new. We know the earth is round because of science, not religion, for example. We don't have to be "sure" of all scientific theories or discoveries, just sure enough to know which explanation is more likely

Answer 9

The Bible is not "fake" - it describes the mythos of the Jewish and Christian traditions. The biblical authors were not writing science, or literal history much of the time, they were writing about their spiritual experience and how they saw their culture.

It was a different way of understanding the world from modern science and history. Science relies on objective evidence. Religion talks about (or ought to talk about) a different kind of experience.

The mythos of the Jews and early Christians may or may not be valid today, but to dismiss it as "fake" is just as literal as reading it as history or science.

Answer 10

i'm an atheist. I even have published questions, and responded questions. i'm hoping I even have accomplished it with an open recommendations even whilst now and returned my questions could have been mischievous. no longer something that I even have examine has brought about me to waiver in my disbelief, even nonetheless some solutions have been food for theory. could desire to I be confident that there is a God by ability of the load of information without relatively seeing him? of direction i could desire to, in basic terms like i could have self belief interior the singularity without simply by fact that. even nonetheless there is no longer one jot interior the Bible or the different non secular texts that I even have encountered will regulate my conviction. the motives are myriad. Blind faith and each and all of the inconsistences, paradx's, contradictions etc. at the instant are not the inspired teachings of the author of the universe, they're the scribblings of adult males, and stone age adult males at that.