[Beckys_Mom]

I have come to hear a lot of religious people that state – Religion gives us FACTS

So when you speak of fact = real scientific true evidence that no one can deny

If you believe that religion has got proven facts to back up the holy tests...

Please provide actual facts...along with the scientific evidence to back them up

Why am I asking? Well I am asking because I for one am very curious as to what the scientific actual facts are...

So if anyone can do this..I am interested in scientific facts that we all can't deny..and not something from a holy book..I mean real facts

Please note...I am asking out of interest..to see if maybe someone new has come to the boards and might have somehting no one else has...who knows?............

For as far as I was alays concerned...growing up with the bible...it was just a book of FAITH and not FACTS..it is up to us if we wish to believe it is factual....thats the point also

This post has been edited by Beckys_Mom: 07 November 2009 - 05:57 PM

[Mr Walker]

i really think belief is rightly independent of facts (or the lack of them)
However the bible(both old and new testament) is full of facts which can be (and have been) confirmed scientifically via many sources.
That does not make the bible true any more than a Dan Brown novel which includes many facts about the real world is true, but MOST of the bibles archaealogy and social history has been confirmed by expert professionals, including athiests and peole from non christian belief systems.
Generally, the first and last chapters are more "mythological" than anything, but a lot of the rest in between is historically accurate. TWo examples. While one can argue that jesus is not recorded outside the bible the names and numbers of centurions stationed in jerusalem, and even smaller towns in galilee, are recorded elsewhere and match those used in the bible.

The secret channel described in the bible as being cut to supply a water source into jerusalem during time of seige has been confimed as historically accurate.
You only have to watch a few independent documentaries on biblical archaeology to appreciate how much of the bible has been confirmed as historically accurate.

Of course the bible leaves a lot out, allowing for the development of other myths. The precise nature of christs crucifixion is one of these. It is quite likely that a cross as we see/envisage today was not used, but this has been debated for many years without successful resolution.

[Beckys_Mom]

Mr Walker, on 08 November 2009 - 01:44 AM, said:

i really think belief is rightly independent of facts (or the lack of them)
However the bible(both old and new testament) is full of facts which can be (and have been) confirmed scientifically via many sources.
That does not make the bible true any more than a Dan Brown novel which includes many facts about the real world is true, but MOST of the bibles archaealogy and social history has been confirmed by expert professionals, including athiests and peole from non christian belief systems.
Generally, the first and last chapters are more "mythological" than anything, but a lot of the rest in between is historically accurate. TWo examples. While one can argue that jesus is not recorded outside the bible the names and numbers of centurions stationed in jerusalem, and even smaller towns in galilee, are recorded elsewhere and match those used in the bible.

The secret channel described in the bible as being cut to supply a water source into jerusalem during time of seige has been confimed as historically accurate.
You only have to watch a few independent documentaries on biblical archaeology to appreciate how much of the bible has been confirmed as historically accurate.

Of course the bible leaves a lot out, allowing for the development of other myths. The precise nature of christs crucifixion is one of these. It is quite likely that a cross as we see/envisage today was not used, but this has been debated for many years without successful resolution.

Thank you Mr Walker for putting in some effort to try and give answers...I appreciate it

I hope to see more......

once again thank you

[Blood_Sacrifice]

The only answer that I cans sense coming is: "Religion is based on faith, thus it cannot be logically/rationally be proven - you require Blind Faith". yet they were the same people who categorized their faith into the scientific framework, saying: "Everything in my religion is truer than any scientific fact out there". Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

[Beckys_Mom]

Blood_Sacrifice, on 08 November 2009 - 05:19 AM, said:

The only answer that I cans sense coming is: "Religion is based on faith, thus it cannot be logically/rationally be proven - you require Blind Faith". yet they were the same people who categorized their faith into the scientific framework, saying: "Everything in my religion is truer than any scientific fact out there". Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Of course its based on faith......I believe that it is how god intedned it...for if religion has actual facts...then its pointless god looking us to put our faith into it all blindly

We (the ones who believe in god and follow him).....do it blindly ...that is what makes it more powerful <--------sadly too many believers forget this

[marabod]

Fact 1 - Jews were living in Middle East.

Fact 2 - a crucified person with no health insurance normally dies

Fact 3 - at certain weather conditions it becomes possible to walk over waters.

Fact 4 - no one knows where is Jesus' body; possibly resurrected and walked away (hypothesys currently being investigated).

Fact 5 - the priests receive fatter pieces for not working.

Fact 6 - there is no Flood waters around anymore.

Fact 7 (for Catholic churches only) - lions did not eat Daniel: archeologists report no bones found in the den.

Fact 8 - Cyrus the Great was existing


I can continue till Monday! All true!

[Mr Walker]

Re fact 3
I suspect someone would have noticed if the sea of galilee was frozen at the time

[karl 12]

Mr Walker, on 08 November 2009 - 12:10 PM, said:

Re fact 3
I suspect someone would have noticed if the sea of galilee was frozen at the time

http://www.infidels....ions.htmlTheres a good list here about bible acurraqcies:



http://www.infidels....radictions.html

This post has been edited by karl 12: 08 November 2009 - 12:33 PM

[Mr Walker]

karl 12, on 08 November 2009 - 10:59 PM, said:

http://www.infidels....ions.htmlTheres a good list here about bible acurraqcies:



http://www.infidels....radictions.html

Sorry, god cut me off from that site. lol

Quote

404 Page Not Found
The server has returned an error that prevented access to the requested resource

The second one worked ok but i notice the writer didnt give the most logical explanations

Eg if everyones stories are exactly the same, they are all lying, whereas truthful witnesses and stories always have a number of discrepancies, partly due to "observer effect" and The bible was written by dozens of people, over a couple of millenia. What? He really expects there not to be discrepancies

Discrepancies actually add to credence in a text like the bible, which is an on going story, rather than distract from it.

This post has been edited by Mr Walker: 08 November 2009 - 12:41 PM

[GIDEON MAGE]

there are religions other than xianity. check out the vedas. thousands of years ago, they discuss subatomic particles.

[marabod]

GIDEON MAGE, on 09 November 2009 - 03:33 AM, said:

there are religions other than xianity. check out the vedas. thousands of years ago, they discuss subatomic particles.

But I think it is a philosophical issue - is the Matter divisible or not and to which degree. Aristotle also believed in atoms, I think this word is his invention. Discussing atoms or subatomic particles by itself does not indicate any scientific knowledge, but is only a logical exercise. From the point of view of natural sciences any scripture presents absolutely no interest; social sciences may of course find interesting information there.

[ChloeB]

marabod, on 08 November 2009 - 09:47 AM, said:

But I think it is a philosophical issue - is the Matter divisible or not and to which degree. Aristotle also believed in atoms, I think this word is his invention. Discussing atoms or subatomic particles by itself does not indicate any scientific knowledge, but is only a logical exercise. From the point of view of natural sciences any scripture presents absolutely no interest; social sciences may of course find interesting information there.

I thought it was interesting it was mentioned in the Quran too:

Not even an atom's weight eludes your Lord, either on earth or in heaven. Nor is there anything smaller than that, or larger, which is not in a Clear Book. (Qur'an, 10:61)

He is the Knower of the Unseen, Whom not an atom's weight eludes, either in the heavens or in the earth; nor is there anything smaller or larger than that which is not in a Clear Book. (Qur'an 34:3)

[marabod]

ChloeB, on 09 November 2009 - 03:53 AM, said:

I thought it was interesting it was mentioned in the Quran too:

Not even an atom's weight eludes your Lord, either on earth or in heaven. Nor is there anything smaller than that, or larger, which is not in a Clear Book. (Qur'an, 10:61)

He is the Knower of the Unseen, Whom not an atom's weight eludes, either in the heavens or in the earth; nor is there anything smaller or larger than that which is not in a Clear Book. (Qur'an 34:3)

The world of antiquity was one, so if the Arabs had access to Aristotle, it would not be surprising, otherwise they could come to the same ideas by themselves. After all Aristotle was a teacher of Alexander of Macedonia, and the latter conquered the related geographical areas and made them a part of his empire. Atomism as such is not a scientific teaching, it became scientific only in 18th century when the Law of Canizzarro was established, Dalton wrote his works and Brown noticed chaotic movement in liquids. There were few other scientists too, dealing with early chemistry and physics, who contributed to atom becoming a scientific term.

[Purplos]

This question gets brought up every week.

I think the issue is the definition of 'fact.' The difference between 'scientific fact' and 'things perceived as true' is vast.
There is no scientific proof of religious events, but many people perceive them to be true. Why does the dead horse have to keep getting beaten?

[Guyver]

Beckys_Mom, on 07 November 2009 - 09:56 AM, said:

I have come to hear a lot of religious people that state – Religion gives us FACTS

So when you speak of fact = real scientific true evidence that no one can deny

If you believe that religion has got proven facts to back up the holy tests...

Please provide actual facts...along with the scientific evidence to back them up

Why am I asking? Well I am asking because I for one am very curious as to what the scientific actual facts are...

So if anyone can do this..I am interested in scientific facts that we all can't deny..and not something from a holy book..I mean real facts

Please note...I am asking out of interest..to see if maybe someone new has come to the boards and might have somehting no one else has...who knows?............

For as far as I was alays concerned...growing up with the bible...it was just a book of FAITH and not FACTS..it is up to us if we wish to believe it is factual....thats the point also

Becky's Mom, when you say provide scientific facts for religion that's like saying provide scientific facts for food! That term is just so generic that it doesn't apply well. For example, I love a good chili relleno - but you couldn't get my Dad to eat one with a bribe. I love spicy food, he doesn't.

When asking for scientific proof of religion you'd have to specify which one. There's alot. From Christianity to Santoria - there's alot of difference there.

If you're specifically refering to the Bible and the associated religions; there are alot of scientific facts as I pointed out in my two threads on the Bible; God's Word.

As for your childhood; yes, the Bible is a book of faith. But it's more than that also. There are some scientific facts, and historical events chronicled there - though the Bible isn't a history book, nor is it a science book. It has what we need to teach us of God, and of his son the redeemer. There's something in the Bible for everyone. That's why at funerals they read Psalm 23 instead of Zoology 101.