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

Belief is indeed an interesting thing........isn't it? I make no claim to knowing God's wishes or Darwin's. I guess I'd rather believe in God, than in a man who undoubtly spent so much time masturbating on long ocean voyages.

[antikristuseke]

I don't believe either, just follow the evidence.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Darwin's work is theory, yes?

Gravity is just a theory, too.

[Task Force]

what proof is there that the bible is true... (and dont say the book.)

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Gravity is just a theory, too.

So says Neal Steven's special person.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary.

Not exactly, but testing is necessary (to which religions are totally hostile, they are not to be tested or being asked questions about: they are just to be believed). Theories however do not stay unchanged forever, they are being tested, and checked for the validity of predictions they may make, and if they are in contradiction to other results of the scientific process. Science is in constant shifting, it changes constantly. But it does not give you the ultimate answers to the universe, just temporary assumptions that fit better into the canon of observations made so far than other assumptions or hallucinations from your last night being drunk in the pub, and creating lesser contradiction with other observations. Science in principal is nothing else than putting observations into an arbitrary order like miniatures are being put on the shelve accoridng to the will of the collector, where this order occasionally gets corrected due to the latest observations, and defining also the methodology by which we try to win new observation results. Science is totally different than religion, because religions just claims something, never makes its claims object of testing or analysis, and rule that these claims should have everlasting validity. religion does all the time what it (wrongly) accuses science of.

As astrophysicist Timothy Ferris put it: "We are not dealing with the universe 'in front of us', which will remain an eternal mystery for us, but we deal with a model of the universethat we can create inside our heads as we like. For all of us, not cosmos itself is the object of our examination, but it's dance with our mind." (translated from the German translation).

Yet the Bible is believed by multidudes, including those who have read Darwin.

That is not evidence either! Hear-say and rumours, and that many people mumble and believe something, is no argument. It says nothing about that what they believe is right or wrong. It just means that they beolieve something and mistake believing with knowing.

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. 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?

[antikristuseke]

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. 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?

And this is where you fail, the burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. You and other religious people claim there is a god, you provide the evidence for its existance, without evidence it is atural to return to the null hypothesis, which in this case is no belief in god.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

And this is where you fail, the burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. You and other religious people claim there is a god, you provide the evidence for its existance, without evidence it is atural to return to the null hypothesis, which in this case is no belief in god.

But I make no claim. You have read too much into the posts. You have claimed their isn't a God, I haven't said there wasn't a Darwin or that his theory doesn't exist. On the contrary, I ask you to explain away the existance of what you don't know. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? That is the basis of science, is it not?

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

But I make no claim. You have read too much into the posts. You have claimed their isn't a God, I haven't said there wasn't a Darwin or that his theory doesn't exist. On the contrary, I ask you to explain away the existance of what you don't know. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? That is the basis of science, is it not?

No I have not, I make no such claim, I just don't believe in a god and don't think it to be rational to believe in a god because of lack of evidence. I dont claim that there is no god but do claim there is no reason to belive in the existance of such an entity.

Darwin's work is theory, yes? That means proof is necessary

You don't understand the word theory do you.

I haven't seen any

Thats not surprising since you havn't read the book you are talking about and don't seem to understand science at all.

I love when my posts are argued.

You are having language problems again, your posts are being ridiculed, that is something different from argued.

why hasn't science investigated the Bible?

They have, that is why it is irrefutably a collection of badly translated heavily edited fragments that were cobbled together over a long period of time with lots of abitary omissions and embellishments which have rendered it practically meaningless as an accurate rendition.
So you know as much about theology as you do about science , well done you manage to surpass your inabilities with the English language into several fields.

[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.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There is a difference between knowledge and belief. And when people just believe, but claim that what they believe in is knowledge - then the troubles begin.

That was an impressive statement. In fact, probably one of the most intelligent things I've ever read in in this forum. I take back almost all of the bad things I ever said about you Skybird.

Why is it that so many folks are threatened by the possibility of God that they are willing to give up their principals to attack someone who does?

I haven't ever attacked anyone for their faith. America allows all faiths, Perhaps that is the difference. If your faith is science, be assured it will change. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.