New Charles Darwin film is 'too controversial' for religious American audiences

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Having read your post Skybird, the question arises............why hasn't science investigated the Bible? Oh, they have, and cannot disprove it as an ecumenical document.

That it is an ecumenical, document, means it is an ecumenical deocument. It proves nothing pro or contra the content of thr bible, but is just stating ther obvious: that the existence of this document is a historic fact.

Actually, science does check historic grounds of the bible's forming up, and also it's historic data. but to scientifically discuss it'S statements on miracles and divi8one entities by content is not being done for the same reason you do not scientifically argue with just anybody picking some random claim from the sky and demands you to prove that he is wrong.

You add the bible to the world that before was just the world, without bible? You say it is true? Fine, then prove it. The burden of evidence is with you, since you claim to explain reality via the bible. You make the claim, you prove it. It is the often used trick of religious sectarians to reverse the burden of evidence and to claim they are right as long as you cannot prove they are wrong, but that is nonsense. But all that you get from them is just an endless lament on what they just believe. you get no methodology, no structure in reason and logic, no critical self-analysis, no cross-comparison with information raised from other sources, in fact you see them not raising new info by themselves, for they do not see a need in for that, since they are completely happy to just stay with unchecked claism and statements from centuioes and millenias ago.

BTW, science has adressed many claims of the bible, and gave substantial explanations that acutally make more sense for us than to refer to them as just divine intervention, or labelling them "miracles", from each of the ten plagues up to Moses dividing the waters or whatever you may have on mind.

the following has been repeatedly quoted by me over the years, I do not want to appear as dogmatic, but in fact this probably is the most precious piece of wisdom I have ever stumbled over in my life, from the Kalamas-Sutra, and 100% culture-free :

"

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they
have been accepted for long generations and
in many countries. Do not believe a thing because
many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on
the authority of one or another of the sages of
old, nor on the ground of statements as found
in the books. Never believe anything because
probability is in its favour. Do not believe in
that which you yourselves have imagined,
thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe
nothing merely on the authority of the teachers
or the priests. After examination, believe that
which you have tested for yourself and found
reasonable, which is in conformity with your

well being and that of others.
"

The difference is I'm not trying to convert you to christanity, yet many tell me my faith is flawed. How far does one think that will go in convincing me?

As I always say, keep your religion to thyselve. As long as people like me must not care for the wallpaper you use in your flat, we do not care and won't tell you to stop demanding us that we should use it, too. I personally do not care for what you believe, nor do I respect the object of your belief if you actaully have a belief. the point is that I will not approach you on this issue as long as I you do not approach me. but if you make your religious claims public, you have to accept other people reacting to it, and not necessarily supportive only. If I listen to music, it'S nobody'S business, but if I do it so loud that others need to listen to it, too, then I have gotten myself into trouble, and it is up to me to turn down the volume.