[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by diamondsmiles ↗

Judge Mathis always says Jesus was black and described as having a dark complexion and curly hair.

Waiting for that to hit the fan!

I have never read the Bible. Just relaying another opinion.

No one will ever know, simply because in those days they didn't identify people by race, or skin tones. So obviously there would be no records. This is why you can read historians of different cultural backgrounds write convincing theories of many named people being not of the traditionally known race.

You can read from qualified scholars that so happen to be black, call just about everyone in history black.

No record, plenty of room for assertion.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Science is still an evolving thing in itself. Of course it would be ridiculous to put any faith in it. Science while it throws the word "fact" around a lot, is still majority -opinion, theory, and much unfinished research. Just because a science breakthrough happens in some subject such as biology, doesn't make science a fact across the board.

However, as much as I love science, (more so over historical theology) I could never let science be my deciding factor in a belief system. Even if science today "proved" there is, and never was any god(s) with their track record, by tomorrow they will "prove" otherwise.

As far as dismissing, Hitchen I would hope will also agree, it is easy to dismiss something beyond our reaches.

We may never see what people seen in the days they went leaps and bounds, in the name of some god(s). Or maybe we have, and do, we just have already dismissed it, and do so.

Who knows? No one.

fair enough (though, i completely disagree with your opinion of science being consistently wrong. it is consistently 'wrong'..in the sense that science keeps learning more, furthering it's knowledge) but we keep coming to the same conclusion....nobody knows. if nobody knows 'if' a god exists, then it's safe to assume that nobody knows 'what' that god would want.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

fair enough (though, i completely disagree with your opinion of science being consistently wrong. it is consistently 'wrong'..in the sense that science keeps learning more, furthering it's knowledge) but we keep coming to the same conclusion....nobody knows. if nobody knows 'if' a god exists, then it's safe to assume that nobody knows 'what' that god would want.

I said as much in the beginning of my post

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

I said as much in the beginning of my post

you also said:

Just because a science breakthrough happens in some subject such as biology, doesn't make science a fact across the board.

However, as much as I love science, (more so over historical theology) I could never let science be my deciding factor in a belief system. Even if science today "proved" there is, and never was any god(s) with their track record, by tomorrow they will "prove" otherwise.

...which is true but it doesnt mean that 'what science doesnt understand' somehow equates to 'god' or 'the source'. when science progresses, it generally corrects part of a theory (which has to be tested in order to be considered a scientific theory) to make it better. it very rarely throws out an entire theory and replaces it with a completely new one.

....or, as neil degrsse tyson put it:



many mysteries in this reality.....and few things we know....however, the few things we know give us a good reason to believe that the things we dont know have nothing to do with anything supernatural.

[TheVrist]

Still science covers a broad spectrum, not a singular focus. I think people that put too much faith in science, leans too heavily on a breakthrough in any subject to boost the overall idealism of science being the rule of thumb.

If hypothetically "god(s)" were of a natural existence. I am willing to bet it would take more than physical science to make that breakthrough of proving a yay, or a nay. (physical science just being an example)

Considering science comes in many subjects, we will probably need to come to a full stop in the trial and error process and phases in an evolving science, before finding a breakthrough in something as complex as a "higher being"

That would mean, no room for theoretical science, being the gospel too.

[TheVrist]

Those focuses totally elude anything we are talking about though. To date, most science dedicated to religion are still in levels of theory, and focused on bible stories, which in my opinion, bible stories were never meant to be fully literal.

Then of course commissioned scientist to debunk doctrines. Which in my opinion, a psychologist could debunk some of the shit people perceived from the bible.

As an atheist, i too am an realist. So if something can't prove something (IE science) then it has no room for debate. However, I don't dismiss science could bring proof to the table, I just don't think they are there yet.

Proving noah didn't build an arch, and the earth wasn't built only 6k years ago, doesn't disprove anything, other than someone's fairytales in a book.

I don't "believe" because I simply have never had this "spiritual" experience, bible thumping jesus lovers say compelled them. Not because science's "nothing there to disprove, so it must not be there", I'm just in the mind that science isn't absolute enough to determine any of the factors needed to even have a seat at the table.

I am more inclined to believe we are a product of hybrid aliens, before I am to believe in the established god(s) man made (or real).

[rob666]

Energy.

There is no new energy in the universe.

It is transferred, but not created.

So....... Where did energy come from?

This is where it's at for me.
I have no interest in the fairy tales, it's a waste of time...... We are finally getting to a point as a species that we might be able to answer some of the real questions.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Kanda444 ↗

you also said:



...which is true but it doesnt mean that 'what science doesnt understand' somehow equates to 'god' or 'the source'. when science progresses, it generally corrects part of a theory (which has to be tested in order to be considered a scientific theory) to make it better. it very rarely throws out an entire theory and replaces it with a completely new one.

....or, as neil degrsse tyson put it:



many mysteries in this reality.....and few things we know....however, the few things we know give us a good reason to believe that the things we dont know have nothing to do with anything supernatural.

30 years ago science said the body sweated salt that needed replenished during and after heavy workouts. Football players were given salt tablets.

Then science said that is completely wrong and athletes should avoid salt, and salt is bad for you.

Now once again science is saying there is little to no evidence salt affects health under normal use.

So like Vrist stated. Science isn't totally reliable, or something that should be taken in as indisputable just because science says so.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

30 years ago science said the body sweated salt that needed replenished during and after heavy workouts. Football players were given salt tablets.

Then science said that is completely wrong and athletes should avoid salt, and salt is bad for you.

Now once again science is saying there is little to no evidence salt affects health under normal use.

So like Vrist stated. Science isn't totally reliable, or something that should be taken in as indisputable just because science says so.

Salt is bad for you.

Pick a better example.

[TheVrist]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Salt is bad for you.

Pick a better example.

The start of Man.