Quote Originally Posted by Ronsam2006
I am definitely not going to take anyone's word or written proof for the existence of Jesus... The Bible could have been re-written a few times though. COULD is the key word.
I can understand you not believing in the divinity of Jesus. I think for the most part the only documents that support those claims are of religious origin, but to deny he ever lived? That is why I listed these people. The people I listed are the historians, not religious writers, of the time period where Jesus of Nazareth was a walking talking man and shortly there after. These people would be just as credible as the historians that discuss the pyramids and historical Egypt, except they would have been more accurate because they were not thousands of years apart which denotes even more accuracy. If its about believing or not believing what is written, then do you believe that Paul Revere, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Abe Lincoln or any of these people were ever alive. Most of what we know about them are from what people wrote about them.

Even the discussion on evolution which starts with Charles Darwin. If you don't look at what people write about him why would you take anything he started or said seriously? The same goes for Einstein or any other theorists or scientist that has not been alive in 50+ years. I guess I am curious at that statement as well, because scientists are using those writings and documentation from early periods to try to determine the validity of their observations. it just seems odd to subscribe to science and its findings, but disagree with the approach. Maybe its just me.

I agree Science has a margin of error, but technology along with evolution has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us. This is real proof as we know it, produced through science and mathematics brought down to the smallest margin of error, probably way more accurate than a book passed down generation after generation, especially when know people, including the most influential and religious figures lie, cheat, steal, etc...do you get where I am going with this?
Technology is applied science, and evolution is scientific theory... so I don't understand what you mean. I read it as:

"I agree science has a margin of error, but technology(applied science) along with evolution (a scientific theory) has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us..."

This is a confusing statement using the practical definitions of technology and evolution. But I think you are saying that the advances in science are decreasing margin of error? The problem lies in that statement. You should not use inaccurate creations of the origin to justify or define the accuracy of the origin. This erases the ability to make errors.

Also, the Bible is translated from its original greek and hebrew texts. The more we learn about historical languages and cultures, the more we are provided with the ability to make sure that we can properly translate texts in their proper context. The new translations of the bible are typically done for accuracy, which is hard to do when the original language has meanings and uses for words that we do not use in modern times.

Its like solving a math problem, getting it wrong, but changing the equation instead of your answer in order to make your answer right. or
1+1=3. being told thats wrong, but then saying the problem itself should have been 1+2 to justify your answer when in actuality it was wrong.
so its a bad practice to try to use products of the process to test the accuracy of that process.

I understand having an issue with religious figures as well. But I don't think that alters the foundations of what the religion stands for. And I agree, most "christians I know are poorly educated on the foundation of their own faith, but why choose to blame the faith. 3

For instance, most of our government is poorly run. Most of our laws are poorly written, but we still don't say that we should have no government, or no laws because people are breaking them and politicians are corrupt. Because we understand the foundations of the laws. That is the habit with religion. We want to blame religion when the problem lies within the men and women who are abusing the terms. Are you a bad parent because your kids disobey your rules? Should speeding laws be retracted because some people abuse and ignore them? Should police officers not be allowed to carry guns because some of them fire them without just cause? Science makes mistakes and people misuse technology all the time, but do we say we should stop creating things and ignore scientific progress? So why is there a double standard for christians/religious people?

The margin of error for science is much more than a tenth of a percent. I think the reason that I would not put faith/trust completely into science, is that throughout history there have been more changes and counter opinion in science. Theories, new sciences, scientific debunking, corrected theories, etc have plagued the scientific community since the wide spread use of the scientific method. So what I am understanding is that PROVEN only means that it has not been found to be inaccurate yet.

but I do not deny the importance of science. its is only when we try to separate it from faith and treat it as if it is the solution to the problems of our world while religion is the culptrit that I have a fundamental problem.

Quick question: in a world with no religion what becomes the replacement for the personification of faith and hope? this is purely an opinionated question.