The Problem with Science Vs Religion Debates

[chibiq]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

So what do Christians have to work with? The Old Testament books, handed down for a good few millennia, then the New Testament, added when the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled, and closed the book that we now know as the Bible. The only thing Christians have to work with is interpretation of this one piece of data that is never going to change.

Science, philosophy, and things of that sort, on the other hand, are subject to change at a moment's notice. Any scientist will tell you that the very nature of science is unbound, able to shake the very foundation of everything we know with the findings of even an amateur, an elementary school student, who accidentally digs up a fossil with his plastic shovel and pail. Science, therefore, is also open to interpretation, but it is also free from the restraint of dogma.

So, if in a week or year or millennia, if science happens to find out that Christians were telling the truth the whole time, that our beliefs were indeed correct, science can't be faulted for being "wrong". It's the nature of science to change, so being wrong is only a part of its (good lord give me a better word..) evolution (doh. ).

So we have two sides. One that stands on a firm foundation, unchanging, and another that's like a bottle in the ocean, taking it whichever way the current or wind is going.

As a matter of fact, if you look at it in the technical aspect, you have numerous different sides, because scientists almost never agree 100% with each other's interpretations. So you have these many different sides that are able to morph into anything the latest tidbit of data throws to them versus the one lonesome side that must defend themselves with a book at was finished almost 2000 years ago. How fair does that really seem to you?

Atheists expect Christians to have the answers to every nitpicked fault they find in Christianity that pertains to science, and it's just plain unreasonable. Not only that, they expect the answers on the fly, or else they crank their insult machine up and go to town.

How fair are these arguments that science keeps bringing up, when they know themselves the facts they're arguing with can change at any minute?

[Beto]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

If you feel adamant about this, you should find Cmass' questions of some interest.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... b3d#156050

[chibiq]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

If you feel adamant about this, you should find Cmass' questions of some interest.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... b3d#156050

I just responded to it (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 061#156061), but I didn't understand the point you were trying to make.

[Rathpig]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

Which demonstrates it's failure.

Assuming an unchanging mythology creates a situation where the entire mythology must be scraped when any one part is shown to be flawed. It is because of these inherent flaws that emotion replaces logic in the religious adherent. Emotion as a basis for belief requires nothing by way of support.

"Faith" is the demonstration of belief in spite of copious evidence to the contrary.

[chibiq]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

Which demonstrates it's failure.

Assuming an unchanging mythology creates a situation where the entire mythology must be scraped when any one part is shown to be flawed. It is because of these inherent flaws that emotion replaces logic in the religious adherent. Emotion as a basis for belief requires nothing by way of support.

"Faith" is the demonstration of belief in spite of copious evidence to the contrary.

If anything it demonstrates science's failure in its "persuit of the truth". Your argument is flawed because Christianity isn't based on emotion, it's based on real testable (and testifiable) truths. Every argument that an atheist puts up is nitpicking in the way of trying to use the ever-changing field of science (agreed?) to try to disprove something that's set in stone.

You can't do it. You can't use something that may not be true to debate against something that is. Until you know 100% that your science is fact, then you can't debate with my Christianity that already knows it is 100% true, because I can't change it. I can't edit my dogma. You however can decide which scientist to follow with every change of the weather.

[Beto]

Every argument that an atheist puts up is nitpicking in the way of trying to use the ever-changing field of science (agreed?) to try to disprove something that's set in stone.

What do you mean when you say you're a "Science of the Bible Supporter"?

[Rathpig]

Your argument is flawed because Christianity isn't based on emotion, it's based on real testable (and testifiable) truths.

This is a very strong claim. Can you demonstrate this through evidence?

Show me "God" without appeals to emotion or "faith".

Until you know 100% that your science is fact, then you can't debate with my Christianity that already knows it is 100% true, because I can't change it.

Actually you have created your own definition of "science" or you seem to grossly misunderstand the purpose of scientific inquiry. Science is a methodology. Science, per se, doesn't make claims except in the area of methodical investigation. You seem to have an issue with this methodology, but that is a personal problem only.

I assume that at 30,000 feet you are a "true believer" in science.

As to the claim that Christianity "knows it is 100% true", this is merely the emotion that I stated earlier. I challenge you to support this claim with empirical evidence.

[Goat]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

Which demonstrates it's failure.

Assuming an unchanging mythology creates a situation where the entire mythology must be scraped when any one part is shown to be flawed. It is because of these inherent flaws that emotion replaces logic in the religious adherent. Emotion as a basis for belief requires nothing by way of support.

"Faith" is the demonstration of belief in spite of copious evidence to the contrary.

If anything it demonstrates science's failure in its "persuit of the truth". Your argument is flawed because Christianity isn't based on emotion, it's based on real testable (and testifiable) truths. Every argument that an atheist puts up is nitpicking in the way of trying to use the ever-changing field of science (agreed?) to try to disprove something that's set in stone.

Testable truths huh? I would like to see the resurrection be tested, and the afterlife, and also the power of prayer in a double blind test.

[chibiq]

Christianity, the Bible, (Christian) Theology, all of these are set in stone. The words of the Bible can't be changed (lol Jehovah Witnesses) because the Bible says they can't be, and this would be going against the word of God.

If you feel adamant about this, you should find Cmass' questions of some interest.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... b3d#156050

Err, sorry, I realized what post you were talking about: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 073#156073 there's my response.

[chibiq]

Every argument that an atheist puts up is nitpicking in the way of trying to use the ever-changing field of science (agreed?) to try to disprove something that's set in stone.

What do you mean when you say you're a "Science of the Bible Supporter"?

I believe that the Bible isn't a science book. However, where it claims authority over such things as the Earth being suspended in nothingness and things of that nature, when taken in context, it knows what it's talking about.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

There's a few examples.