1,660
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 322:
Line 322: + +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 18:17, April 8, 2007
, 18:17, April 8, 2007→I do not understand this argument.
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Despite Phil's protestations, faith is defined by believing something ''without'' evidence. Faith is a feeling, often a decision, to believe in something grander than nature/science. When one is overwhelmed with religious feeling or epiphany, this is a subjective phenomenon. As most of us know, applying science to God rarely leaves either smelling right. Dawkins denies the value of the concept of ''nonoverlapping magisteria'', but it really is a useful concept, and probably more so for Theists than Atheists. I don't want someone coming after my faith with an electron microscope.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)