Easier to believe in evolution

[brianlove84]

If I just picture God fronting the whole evolution movement. His divine power allowed the Earth to exist and people to be created and evolve and he still fufills his purpose

Brian
Fontana

[Biker]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

More importantly, so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

He who makes the claims bears the burden of showing reason to accept them as true and accurate -- particularly when promoting them to others as though they were true.

"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
Is this an actual claim?
It seems to me that it is merely a statement that the original manuscripts of Scripture do not affirm anything contrary to fact that anyone is aware of.
You seem to take issue with the non-claim. What exactly do you take issue with that is in Scripture in the original manuscripts that is contrary to fact?

Biker

[olivergringold]

Can you be more specific about what I've said that confuses you?

[Fallibleone]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

More importantly, so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

He who makes the claims bears the burden of showing reason to accept them as true and accurate -- particularly when promoting them to others as though they were true.

"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
Is this an actual claim?
It seems to me that it is merely a statement that the original manuscripts of Scripture do not affirm anything contrary to fact that anyone is aware of.
You seem to take issue with the non-claim.

Woah nelly, not so fast. You asked if it is an actual claim, then all in a big rush started calling it a non-claim. This is the sort of occasion where all sorts of annoying misunderstandings can arise if we are not very careful.

What exactly do you take issue with that is in Scripture in the original manuscripts that is contrary to fact?

Biker

Again, first things first. If in fact you have indeed made a claim, we need to establish that. Then we can move on to Biker's Logical Fallacy of the Week.

Here is a dictionary definition of 'claim':

claim Audio Help /kleɪm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kleym] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due: to claim an estate by inheritance.
2. to assert and demand the recognition of (a right, title, possession, etc.); assert one's right to: to claim payment for services.
3. to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.
4. to require as due or fitting: to claim respect.
–verb (used without object)
5. to make or file a claim: to claim for additional compensation.
–noun
6. a demand for something as due; an assertion of a right or an alleged right: He made unreasonable claims on the doctor's time.
7. an assertion of something as a fact: He made no claims to originality.
8. a right to claim or demand; a just title to something: His claim to the heavyweight title is disputed.
9. something that is claimed, esp. a piece of public land for which formal request is made for mining or other purposes.
10. a request or demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy, a workers' compensation law, etc.: We filed a claim for compensation from the company.
—Idiom
11. lay claim to, to declare oneself entitled to: I have never laid claim to being an expert in tax laws.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim

You see point 3 there? If you assert something as a fact, you are making a 'claim'. Therefore I would ask you which part of this 'statement':

"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

you wish to put forward as non-fact.


Or are you now saying that a 'statement' is different from a 'claim'? OK Biker. What is it about your statement of fact that makes it a non-claim?

[Biker]

Can you be more specific about what I've said that confuses you?

Everything!
So, explain it.

Biker

[Biker]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

More importantly, so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

He who makes the claims bears the burden of showing reason to accept them as true and accurate -- particularly when promoting them to others as though they were true.

"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
Is this an actual claim?
It seems to me that it is merely a statement that the original manuscripts of Scripture do not affirm anything contrary to fact that anyone is aware of.
You seem to take issue with the non-claim.

Woah nelly, not so fast. You asked if it is an actual claim, then all in a big rush started calling it a non-claim. This is the sort of occasion where all sorts of annoying misunderstandings can arise if we are not very careful.

What exactly do you take issue with that is in Scripture in the original manuscripts that is contrary to fact?

Biker

Again, first things first. If in fact you have indeed made a claim, we need to establish that. Then we can move on to Biker's Logical Fallacy of the Week.

Here is a dictionary definition of 'claim':

claim Audio Help /kleɪm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kleym] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due: to claim an estate by inheritance.
2. to assert and demand the recognition of (a right, title, possession, etc.); assert one's right to: to claim payment for services.
3. to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.
4. to require as due or fitting: to claim respect.
–verb (used without object)
5. to make or file a claim: to claim for additional compensation.
–noun
6. a demand for something as due; an assertion of a right or an alleged right: He made unreasonable claims on the doctor's time.
7. an assertion of something as a fact: He made no claims to originality.
8. a right to claim or demand; a just title to something: His claim to the heavyweight title is disputed.
9. something that is claimed, esp. a piece of public land for which formal request is made for mining or other purposes.
10. a request or demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy, a workers' compensation law, etc.: We filed a claim for compensation from the company.
—Idiom
11. lay claim to, to declare oneself entitled to: I have never laid claim to being an expert in tax laws.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim

You see point 3 there? If you assert something as a fact, you are making a 'claim'. Therefore I would ask you which part of this 'statement':

"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

you wish to put forward as non-fact.


Or are you now saying that a 'statement' is different from a 'claim'? OK Biker. What is it about your statement of fact that makes it a non-claim?

Whoa fallible one, not so fast.
Z's makes numerous contentious statements daily about how he doesn't belive supernatural this and that. Isn't it incumbent on him to back his speculation and personal opinion? He never has.
The inerrant document in question, isn't it a historical documentation of fact?
I remind that "The inerrancy of Scripture means, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
Unless of coarse, you have 'anything'?

Biker

[Wyvern]

Z's makes numerous contentious statements daily about how he doesn't belive supernatural this and that. Isn't it incumbent on him to back his speculation and personal opinion? He never has.
The inerrant document in question, isn't it a historical documentation of fact?
I remind that "The inerrancy of Scripture means, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

Due to your claim of inerrancy you are making a whole slew of claims all in one fell swoop. Your statement of inerrancy which you seem to adhere to makes the claim that everything within the bible is true and factual. The only real difficulty is that you should state which parts are literal, allegorical, metaphorical or simply mistranslated, it would save everyone a lot of time if you would do so.

[Zzyzx]

.

Z's makes numerous contentious statements daily about how he doesn't belive supernatural this and that. Isn't it incumbent on him to back his speculation and personal opinion? He never has.

Mr. Biker has difficulty making the distinction between opinion and fact and the significance of each.

When Zzyzx says that he has encountered no evidence of supernatural beings or nature-defying “miracles”, he is stating OPINON – clearly. That is reinforced by a line in his signature. “All expressed is opinion”.

Would any rational person expect Zzyzx to “back his opinion” and prove that he has not encountered evidence? Would Mr. Biker expect that proof?

Zzyzx makes no claim of universal truth, no claim of knowledge “beyond nature”, no claim to possess a magical book that contains truth and knowledge, no claim to know what is best for anyone as a lifestyle or belief. Zzyzx is NOT promoting any belief or non-belief – only encouraging people to evaluate the MERITS of what is said and make their own decisions (free of intimidation by threats or coercion with promises).

There is nothing about that position that requires substantiation or justification. It is CLEARLY a personal opinion and a religion-free lifestyle (i.e. without baggage and encumbrance of supernatural beliefs). Many disagree with both the opinion and the lifestyle – but that is THEIR problem, Mr. Biker.

Those who disagree with the above opinion and the religion-free lifestyle often become angry or frustrated when they are unable to convince, coerce or intimidate me to worship as they worship and to believe in their favorite gods. Many become hostile and almost incoherent when it is pointed out that their favorite “god” is just one of thousands that have been loved, feared and worshiped by humans – and that there is no evidence to suggest that theirs is any more “real” than any other. Monotheism must be frustrating to defend.

All the above is clearly personal opinion and conviction. It is not presented as anything else.

The inerrant document in question, isn't it a historical documentation of fact?
I remind that "The inerrancy of Scripture means, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
Unless of coarse, you have 'anything'?

On the other hand, when Mr. Biker says that the bible is inerrant he is making a claim of FACT – not opinion. The claim IS put forth as representing special knowledge of supernaturalism and IS intended to promote religious beliefs. Claims put forth as fact and as truth are expected to be substantiated.

The concept of substantiating claims seems very foreign and unfamiliar to many theists, particularly Mr. Biker, who has established a reputation for NOT providing substantiation for claims – perhaps thinking that quoting scripture to non-believers is convincing evidence and that dancing around or ignoring questions is not noticed by readers.

Of course, Mr. Biker has learned to insert “disclaimers” or “escape clauses” in his claim of “biblical inerrancy” by referring to only the “original manuscripts” being inerrant – knowing that the original manuscripts are not available. Thus the bibles (100+ versions) available to the public are NOT “inerrant” according to Mr. Biker’s criteria. I agree that the available bibles are not inerrant.

Perhaps Mr. Biker does not realize that by restricting "inerrancy" to "original manuscripts" makes his bible NOT inerrant because it cannot be original manuscripts.

In my OPINION the bible is a book of fables that exaggerate events to supernatural proportions. In my OPINION supernatural beings are “created in the image of man” by human imagination. In my OPINION “miracles” did NOT occur as reported. I notice that no one is able to produce any evidence that gods or miracles are real – but that doesn’t keep people from believing in supernaturalism and attempting to convince others to worship their favorite gods. There can be handsome profit in being a “prophet” (as televangelists and the pope demonstrate).

Does it disturb you, Mr. Biker, that I disagree with public promotion of worship of invisible super beings AND that I ask questions that you cannot answer honestly and accurately without discrediting your beliefs?

[Fallibleone]

So-called "science" has not proven any Scripture fact wrong that I am aware of.

More importantly, so-called Christianity has not proved any of the supernatural claims of "scripture" right.

He who makes the claims bears the burden of showing reason to accept them as true and accurate -- particularly when promoting them to others as though they were true.

"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
Is this an actual claim?
It seems to me that it is merely a statement that the original manuscripts of Scripture do not affirm anything contrary to fact that anyone is aware of.
You seem to take issue with the non-claim.

Woah nelly, not so fast. You asked if it is an actual claim, then all in a big rush started calling it a non-claim. This is the sort of occasion where all sorts of annoying misunderstandings can arise if we are not very careful.

What exactly do you take issue with that is in Scripture in the original manuscripts that is contrary to fact?

Biker

Again, first things first. If in fact you have indeed made a claim, we need to establish that. Then we can move on to Biker's Logical Fallacy of the Week.

Here is a dictionary definition of 'claim':

claim Audio Help /kleɪm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kleym] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due: to claim an estate by inheritance.
2. to assert and demand the recognition of (a right, title, possession, etc.); assert one's right to: to claim payment for services.
3. to assert or maintain as a fact: She claimed that he was telling the truth.
4. to require as due or fitting: to claim respect.
–verb (used without object)
5. to make or file a claim: to claim for additional compensation.
–noun
6. a demand for something as due; an assertion of a right or an alleged right: He made unreasonable claims on the doctor's time.
7. an assertion of something as a fact: He made no claims to originality.
8. a right to claim or demand; a just title to something: His claim to the heavyweight title is disputed.
9. something that is claimed, esp. a piece of public land for which formal request is made for mining or other purposes.
10. a request or demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy, a workers' compensation law, etc.: We filed a claim for compensation from the company.
—Idiom
11. lay claim to, to declare oneself entitled to: I have never laid claim to being an expert in tax laws.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim

You see point 3 there? If you assert something as a fact, you are making a 'claim'. Therefore I would ask you which part of this 'statement':

"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

you wish to put forward as non-fact.


Or are you now saying that a 'statement' is different from a 'claim'? OK Biker. What is it about your statement of fact that makes it a non-claim?

Whoa fallible one, not so fast.
Z's makes numerous contentious statements daily about how he doesn't belive supernatural this and that. Isn't it incumbent on him to back his speculation and personal opinion? He never has.

Yes, dearest Biker, yes. I realise by now that, when confronted with a request that you prove one of your unfounded claims, you have various tools at your disposal which you believe enable you to better dodge the issue unnoticed (by the way, you have yet to respond to my reply to your untrue accusation that I misquoted you on that other thread). Unfortunately for you, they don't enable you to better dodge the issue unnoticed. They simply flag up your post as saying 'Hi, Biker here, dodging another request for evidence by employing a logical fallacy!' Even if we were now talking about Zzyzx's disbelief, I would consider it my duty as an all-round lovely person to explain to you how a personal opinion which is clearly stated as such does not require proof. Zzyzx's 'numerous contentious statements about how he doesn't believe supernatural this or that' require no evidence, because they concern his clearly-expressed belief. But we're not talking about Zzyzx, are we. We're talking about you.

The inerrant document in question, isn't it a historical documentation of fact?

Are you seriously asking me if the Bible is a historical document?? You've done it again. 'The inerrant document in question' is a claim, untroubled by any evidence with which to back it up.

I remind that "The inerrancy of Scripture means, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

And I remind you that you have failed to answer my question. If this is not a claim (an assertion that something is a fact), which part of it is NON-FACT?

Unless of coarse, you have 'anything'?

Biker

Do you ever actually read what other people type? YOU need to provide evidence on yet ANOTHER thread for yet ANOTHER unsupported claim.

[bernee51]

Whoa fallible one, not so fast.
Z's makes numerous contentious statements daily about how he doesn't belive supernatural this and that. Isn't it incumbent on him to back his speculation and personal opinion?

It is up to those who claim the supernatural to support that claim - not th other way around.

He never has.

He doesn't have to.

The inerrant document in question, isn't it a historical documentation of fact?

Here is an example of a 'claim'. It is you responsibility to back up that claim.

I remind that "The inerrancy of Scripture means, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

And this is how you back it up - with opinion.

I have asked on numerous times for you to present the 'original manuscripts' for perusal...you have not been able to produce any. Could that be because they don't exist and your claim is nothing bu a confabulation?

[Zzyzx]

.

Whoa fallible one, not so fast.
Z's makes numerous contentious statements daily about how he doesn't belive supernatural this and that. Isn't it incumbent on him to back his speculation and personal opinion?

It is up to those who claim the supernatural to support that claim - not th other way around.

He never has.

He doesn't have to.

The inerrant document in question, isn't it a historical documentation of fact?

Here is an example of a 'claim'. It is you responsibility to back up that claim.

I remind that "The inerrancy of Scripture means, that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."

And this is how you back it up - with opinion.

Mr. Biker isn’t expected to present anything but opinion and scriptural quotes (and faithfully does not). He is a fundamentalist / one who regards the bible as literally true and inerrant. Such believers cannot substantiate their claims in real world debate and discussion because they have no evidence.

Since evidence is NOT available to substantiate their claims they demand that others “prove my claims false” (or accept them as true). Since they “defend the faith” any practice, no matter how illogical, is evidently acceptable. Ducking questions and issues is standard fare.

I have asked on numerous times for you to present the 'original manuscripts' for perusal...you have not been able to produce any. Could that be because they don't exist and your claim is nothing bu a confabulation?

It is well known, except perhaps to Mr. Biker, that “original documents” of writings compiled into what is now known as the bible are NOT known to exist. The “bible” was constructed during the fourth century by government decree. The book has been variously translated, hand-transcribed, revised, modified and rewritten – and currently appears in over one hundred versions. Original manuscripts were NOT preserved and do not survive to this day (unless Mr. Biker knows of secret, hidden examples of “original manuscripts” which he can bring forward).

Therefore, ALL claims relating to original documents being true and/or inearrant are fraudulent because no one knows what such documents might have contained.