Teenage Atheist Union

[JDC]

Retuning on topic: Toxic, Bible is written by more than a single person. Take that in mind.

This disproves the dogma that the Bible is an infallible source. If it were truly written by an intelligent and perfect Deity, then it should contain no contradictions (or at the least, be limited to very few contradictions as a result of being translated several dozen times from the original passages), as opposed to something compiled by a dozen or more people.

Or it could be that God exists (considering the Bible scenario), yet the word as forwarded (in the form of the Bible) is not how it was originally spoken, but rather the interpretation of humans.

[Gandalf]

This disproves the dogma that the Bible is an infallible source.

Wikipedia is written by millions of people yet (by some) seen as infallible source.

[Jubin]

Wikipedia is written by millions of people yet (by some) seen as infallible source.

Science is done and written by millions of people and also seen as infallible source.

[Void]

Science is done and written by millions of people and also seen as infallible source.

The only way I can end this combo is to say: Knowledge is relative.

[JDC]

The only way I can end this combo is to say: Knowledge is relative.

So basically the different points of view on knowledge have no absolute truth or reality as they are all based on subjective perception?

[Wolfe]

One thing is to trust in a book, that has years of research documented and shown, another is to believe in a book that just tells you to believe in something..

And even books with those great years of research can be fake and show nothing of what truly is the real thing.


The human species won't find the answer to who created the universe, and shouldn't even bother to, it is something beyond it's reach, and even if a theory, backed up by evidence does come up, it might yet be fake. Nothing is for sure in this world.


tl;dr. Nothing in this world is an infallible source of knowledge, just some things make more sense than others. That is why, scientists create Theories, it just so happens some of these theories can just make so much sense, it actually turns into a fact, but who knows, one day a scientist can come and disprove that "fact".


So again, we won't ever find out the answer to what created this universe, and it's actually a huge waste of time trying to figure out the answer.

[Jubin]

tl;dr. Nothing in this world is an infallible source of knowledge, just some things make more sense than others. That is why, scientists create Theories, it just so happens some of these theories can just make so much sense, it actually turns into a fact, but who knows, one day a scientist can come and disprove that "fact".

When talking about science, make sure you know what scientists actually call a theory and differentiate it from hypothesis.

[Wolfe]

When talking about science, make sure you know what scientists actually call a theory and differentiate it from hypothesis.

Fine, a bad use of the words ^^ I just completely forgot the word hypothesis in english :P

[Gandalf]

One thing is to trust in a book, that has years of research documented and shown, another is to believe in a book that just tells you to believe in something..

There is a book based on writings of 2000 years old, which was created 1200 years ago after extensive study and research of which parts to include. It has been read and studied for 1200 years.
There is another book that was written 150 years ago, after years of extensive study by a single person.
If they conflict, who to believe?

[Wolfe]

There is a book based on writings of 2000 years old, which was created 1200 years ago after extensive study and research of which parts to include. It has been read and studied for 1200 years.
There is another book that was written 150 years ago, after years of extensive study by a single person.
If they conflict, who to believe?

Whoever makes more sense, credibility isn't gained by time, and even so, science has advanced in these 2000 years, therefore the newest one should have more means to prove their hypothesis, yet we still need to rely on whatever makes more sense, not whatever is older.

[Gandalf]

Whoever makes more sense, credibility isn't gained by time, and even so, science has advanced in these 2000 years, therefore the newest one should have more means to prove their hypothesis, yet we still need to rely on whatever makes more sense, not whatever is older.

But how to decide which is which.

[Wolfe]

But how to decide which is which.

Well, that's pretty relative, I guess it seriously depends on the case handed, we analize each hypothesis and it's thoughts and ideas, and work out what makes more sense, that's why scientists are always debating stuff, there are always two sides, and each will debate and see in the end which idea makes more sense and should be considered the "right" one, yet it could also be disprooved in the future.

[JDC]

The human species won't find the answer to who created the universe, and shouldn't even bother to, it is something beyond it's reach, and even if a theory, backed up by evidence does come up, it might yet be fake. Nothing is for sure in this world.

How do you know that the human species will not someday reach a level (technologically, intellectually, spiritually, etc...) where the means to find out the truth behind the creation of the Universe will become accessible?

[Dutchy]

It's about looking at it from a different perspective. When believing in the bible, you rely on belief. When believing in science, you rely on facts.

[JDC]

It's about looking at it from a different perspective. When believing in the bible, you rely on belief. When believing in science, you rely on facts.

What about scientific guesses which state that something happens, although the event in question has not been seen and disputably proven correct? (i.e: The graviton hypothesis)