Stupid reason that a guy became a Christian....

[ArmorPierce]

This is where the philosophy of science class, and more particularly the reading for that class, came in. One point is driven home to me: it is not possible to proof that something is true, but it is possible and much easy to falsify something that is untrue. That is falsification is a much better test: if something cannot be falsified then the chance is that it is most probably true. This is a point that I vaguely realised before, and may even have been mentioned to me by others in less eloquent terms. But until this class, and until this point in time, I was unable too fully appreciate its meaning and apply it to the issue I am cogitating.

With the logic of this way of thinking set in, I began to look at the reliability of the Bible in a different way. Because I am unable to provide, nor aware of, any convincing evidence that opposed the reliability of the Bible, my only conclusion is that it must be reliable. Notice the emphasis is that there are no convincing evidence challenging the reliability of the Bible. There are rumors, suggestions, hypothesis that seek to undermine the reliability of the Bible but they are really no match for the mountain of evidence that suggest otherwise. I will not go into the evidence here; nonetheless, overall, as a historical text, the Bible is as reliable as any historian would have wished and perhaps more.

Even I see the flaw in his argument. There is evidence that shows that the Bible is not the word of god unless god was very, very stupid and not infallible which then is evidence that the Bible accounts of god is contradictory and unreliable.

And what is this thing about "if something cannot be falsified then the chance is that it is most probably true". How would you falsify a supposedly omnipitent being that isn't exactly being defined to as what it is so that we can not test it? Using what he said I could say that I am a alien spy here to brainwash all of humanity to make you a slave race, BTW, you won't be able to tell whether I am an alien or how I got here because we work in ways unknown to you and and transformed into human form.


The burden of proof is on them to show that the Bible is a reliable source.
BTW, he was a trekkie....

[data_link]

This is where the philosophy of science class, and more particularly the reading for that class, came in. One point is driven home to me: it is not possible to proof that something is true, but it is possible and much easy to falsify something that is untrue.

If you are talking about falsifiable scientific theories, then you are correct. However God is not a falsifiable scientific theory. In fact, God isn't even a theory, He's an excuse for willful ignorance, and a pathetic one at that.

That is falsification is a much better test: if something cannot be falsified then the chance is that it is most probably true.

Actually, if something cannot be falsified, even in theory, then it is most probably false. Otherwise, because I cannot disprove it, there is an immaterial pink unicorn reading over my shoulder.

This is a point that I vaguely realised before, and may even have been mentioned to me by others in less eloquent terms. But until this class, and until this point in time, I was unable too fully appreciate its meaning and apply it to the issue I am cogitating.

In other words, prior to now you didn't know enough latin to impress your firends with your stupidity.

With the logic of this way of thinking set in, I began to look at the reliability of the Bible in a different way. Because I am unable to provide, nor aware of, any convincing evidence that opposed the reliability of the Bible, my only conclusion is that it must be reliable.

Argument from ignorance. I am unable to provide any evidence that the Matrix is fiction. Do I therefore conclude that I am sitting in a pink tank waiting for my body to be harvested by the machines upon my "death?"

Notice the emphasis is that there are no convincing evidence challenging the reliability of the Bible. There are rumors, suggestions, hypothesis that seek to undermine the reliability of the Bible but they are really no match for the mountain of evidence that suggest otherwise.

More like a molehill of evidence. Get this straight nickelhead - the accounts of the bible are so contradictory that they can't even decide who Jesus's grandfather was. Suggest you read the skeptics annotated bible before you lose all capability to reason (if you haven't already.)

I will not go into the evidence here; nonetheless, overall, as a historical text, the Bible is as reliable as any historian would have wished and perhaps more.

No, you won't cite the evidence here, you'll just make some vauge allusions to it's existence and expect us to take your word on it. Dumbass.

[SeebianWurm]

This is where the philosophy of science class, and more particularly the reading for that class, came in. One point is driven home to me: it is not possible to proof that something is true, but it is possible and much easy to falsify something that is untrue. That is falsification is a much better test: if something cannot be falsified then the chance is that it is most probably true. This is a point that I vaguely realised before, and may even have been mentioned to me by others in less eloquent terms. But until this class, and until this point in time, I was unable too fully appreciate its meaning and apply it to the issue I am cogitating.

With the logic of this way of thinking set in, I began to look at the reliability of the Bible in a different way. Because I am unable to provide, nor aware of, any convincing evidence that opposed the reliability of the Bible, my only conclusion is that it must be reliable. Notice the emphasis is that there are no convincing evidence challenging the reliability of the Bible. There are rumors, suggestions, hypothesis that seek to undermine the reliability of the Bible but they are really no match for the mountain of evidence that suggest otherwise. I will not go into the evidence here; nonetheless, overall, as a historical text, the Bible is as reliable as any historian would have wished and perhaps more.

[sarcasm]I find the allusion to mythical evidence at the end chilling. We've got the king of cliffhangers here.[/sarcasm]

[data_link]

This is where the philosophy of science class, and more particularly the reading for that class, came in. One point is driven home to me: it is not possible to proof that something is true, but it is possible and much easy to falsify something that is untrue. That is falsification is a much better test: if something cannot be falsified then the chance is that it is most probably true. This is a point that I vaguely realised before, and may even have been mentioned to me by others in less eloquent terms. But until this class, and until this point in time, I was unable too fully appreciate its meaning and apply it to the issue I am cogitating.

With the logic of this way of thinking set in, I began to look at the reliability of the Bible in a different way. Because I am unable to provide, nor aware of, any convincing evidence that opposed the reliability of the Bible, my only conclusion is that it must be reliable. Notice the emphasis is that there are no convincing evidence challenging the reliability of the Bible. There are rumors, suggestions, hypothesis that seek to undermine the reliability of the Bible but they are really no match for the mountain of evidence that suggest otherwise. I will not go into the evidence here; nonetheless, overall, as a historical text, the Bible is as reliable as any historian would have wished and perhaps more.

[sarcasm]I find the allusion to mythical evidence at the end chilling. We've got the king of cliffhangers here.[/sarcasm]

N00b detected. Initiating poking sequence...
3...
2...
1...
OKE:

[Exonerate]

The burden of proof is on them to show that the Bible is a reliable source.
BTW, he was a trekkie....

Ahh... That explains a lot. Btw, POKE

[Exonerate]

Noo! Data beat me to it!!!

[SeebianWurm]

I'm a lurker. Pokes hurt.

[data_link]

I'm a lurker. Pokes hurt.

Hey, it's only a greeting. BTW:

[SeebianWurm]

[ArmorPierce]

Oh look a newb *POKE*

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I challenge that guy to take the Mark 16:18 poison challenge, if he thinks the Bible is so accurate and reliable. There are just too many of these people on Earth.

[Exonerate]

I challenge that guy to take the Mark 16:18 poison challenge, if he thinks the Bible is so accurate and reliable. There are just too many of these people on Earth.

Thats a brilliant way to eliminate fundies! Takes care of the most hard-core ones

[DPDarkPrimus]

I challenge that guy to take the Mark 16:18 poison challenge, if he thinks the Bible is so accurate and reliable. There are just too many of these people on Earth.

That's the greatest stupid Christian elimination scheme I've ever heard.

[Sienthal]

He has the general idea of falsification off. In falsification, if you cannot (As in, test it for Quantitative values) falsify something, then it cannot be accepted as scientific theory, and therefore cannot be true. This is often used in arguments against the evolution theory, being that since Evolution, according to falsification, cannot be falsified. If this were true, however, most accepted parts of science would not be viable.

Even the person who created this (Unfortunately, I cannot recall his name off-hand, and I don't wanna check my books, ) says that the falsification test is not particularly valid, and needs to be reworded.


And he has not found any convincing evidence opposing the Bible, instead finding a mountain of evidence supporting it? ...No comment...

[neoolong]

I challenge that guy to take the Mark 16:18 poison challenge, if he thinks the Bible is so accurate and reliable. There are just too many of these people on Earth.

That's the greatest stupid Christian elimination scheme I've ever heard.

And entertaining to.

[Yossarian]

Quite:

Because I am unable to provide, nor aware of, any convincing evidence that opposed the reliability of the Bible, my only conclusion is that it must be reliable.

He ignore several blatent contradictions in the Bible like the two different orders that the world was created and the two sets of commandments. Which set of commandments do you use if you want to base your moral code on the Bible?.

as a historical text, the Bible is as reliable as any historian would have wished and perhaps more

When god was terrorizing the Egyptions he among other things killed all the first born and the Pharoh. The Egyptions fail to mention this even they kept records of something as trivial as how they made perfume and how they wore it

Notice the emphasis is that there are no convincing evidence challenging the reliability of the Bible. There are rumors, suggestions, hypothesis that seek to undermine the reliability of the Bible but they are really no match for the mountain of evidence that suggest otherwise.

I'll give 10 to 1 odds that if you ask he'll have lost this mountain of evidence