Sam Harris Slaughters Christianity

Originally posted by NewGuy01
No, that's not even close to the definition of a theory, and having blind faith in the existence of an invisible magic man doesn't resemble the scientific method in any capacity.

Sorry to interject, but I hope you do realize that *blind faith* is not the opposite of *scientific method* to use broad generalizations.

btw, Spirituality =/= Science and they should nto be discussed on the same field.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
No, not all religions use that framework. Nor would it be particularly impressive if they did. 😐

A small nitpick but actually it would be very impressive if that was the case.

Originally posted by Stigma
Spirituality =/= Science and they should nto be discussed on the same field.

Well that sounds like an awfully convenient distinction, but I agree in a sense. Approaching rational and irrational things the same way is pretty silly.

A small nitpick but actually it would be very impressive if that was the case.

Let me rephrase: It would indeed be odd if there were no deviations from that particular system, but the fact that the heaven/hell framework is as common as it doesn't require a special explanation. It a very simple reward/punishment system.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Except that "Magic Man" hasn't been able to be disproved. Until then, it's a theory for the fact that you can't disprove it. And it answers to the WHY things happen.

You're not wrong about that. Can't really prove that Cinderella and her fairy godmother didn't exist either. The point is that there isn't a good reason to think so.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
You're not wrong about that. Can't really prove that Cinderella and her fairy godmother didn't exist either. The point is that there isn't a good reason to think so.

Except Cindarella is a tale not a Religion.

The bible is also a collection of tales. The fact that people worship it doesn't make its contents any more or less legitimate.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
The bible is also a collection of tales. The fact that people worship it doesn't make its contents any more or less legitimate.

Except the Bible is based on actual characters.

Science has proved the existance of Jesus Christ along with other Characters of the Bible.

So it isnt the same. Your rhetoric is invalid.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Except the Bible is based on actual characters.

Science has proved the existance of Jesus Christ along with other Characters of the Bible.

So it isnt the same. Your rhetoric is invalid.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Except the Bible is based on actual characters.

Science has proved the existance of Jesus Christ along with other Characters of the Bible.

So it isnt the same. Your rhetoric is invalid.

Called it, he's a retard.

There's only really proof of Jesus existing, Moses existing and a big flood, which might imply Noah existed, but then that means Gilgamesh existed as well...

The rest of the big Biblical characters seem to be just characters.

Originally posted by MythLord
There's only really proof of Jesus existing, Moses existing and a big flood, which might imply Noah existed, but then that means Gilgamesh existed as well...

The rest of the big Biblical characters seem to be just characters.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
Well that sounds like an awfully convenient distinction, but I agree in a sense. Approaching rational and irrational things the same way is pretty silly.

Let me rephrase: It would indeed be odd if there were no deviations from that particular system, but the fact that the heaven/hell framework is as common as it doesn't require a special explanation. It a very simple reward/punishment system.

Not sure what you mean by the dichotomy ot rational and irational by subscribing it to scientific and religious positions as a default. Not all religioms are the same, not all religions are inherently irrational, heck not all scientific gie³da arê inherently rational only.

Still,let me ask you an important question. Which of these would describe best your view on reality? Materialism, Naturalism or Scientism? This would really clear up your arguments.

* scientific fields

Sorry about the typos. For somê reason I cannot edit my previous post, though.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Moses is almost certainly fictional.

mmm

Great, then that's another strike against the Bible being legitimate.

Not sure what you mean by the dichotomy ot rational and irational by subscribing it to scientific and religious positions as a default.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The characters of the Bible have been mythologized and factionalized to the point where they might as well be characters in a tale.

According to?

Still not a tale. A tale is a story of fictional characters. The Bible is based on real Characters which trumpcards it being a tale. As simple as that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Called it, he's a retard.

Samething can be said about you 😛

Originally posted by MythLord
There's only really proof of Jesus existing, Moses existing and a big flood, which might imply Noah existed, but then that means Gilgamesh existed as well...

The rest of the big Biblical characters seem to be just characters.

Joseph existed. David Existed as well as Solomon.

Plus there are actual proof of certain events in the Bible such as the Plagues of Egypt and the Crucifixion of Jesus.

So claiming it is 100% SI FI is certainly rebuked.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Samething can be said about you 😛

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Bleehhh! who would?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Bleehhh! who would?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
According to?

Still not a tale. A tale is a story of fictional characters. The Bible is based on real Characters which trumpcards it being a tale. As simple as that.

It's not a tale in more or less the same way the Iliad isn't a tale. So yeah, basically a tale with some historical facts sprinkled in.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
According to virtually every historian who's worth a damn.

It's not a tale in more or less the same way the Iliad isn't a tale. So yeah, basically a tale with some historical facts sprinkled in.

Okay i guess we are confusing a tale with Si FI.

Well i could tell you a tale about Hitler doesnt mean it isnt real.