hi jamesontheroad
I might put a mantra on my thesis too :-) :-) :-)
dont see anything not right with it
love satchi

Has the bible been peer reviewed?

If you're using the quote as an example of the fallacy of religious texts, I see no problem. Otherwise, it seems a little superfluous. As for the Pope talking about economics - surely his only major economic "experiences" have involved Nazi gold and payoffs to victims of paedophiles?

I suppose you could argue that the gospels have been peer reviewed, and the peers have written their own versions (i.e. amednments), but haven't they got a load of gospels that the churches don't allow to be 'official'? I suppose that's like ignoring the reviewer that wanted you to re-write loads of it.

if the Bible is false, why is it such an issue for most of you posting on this thread? it's like if i said grass is blue.. i doubt i'd get a massive response saying it was green - because its pretty obvious. likewise, its pretty obvious that there is a god out there.. and we all instinctively know that. the issue then should not be if there is a god, but who is the true God.

i see nothing wrong with quoting a religious source if it lends weight to your argument. i also advocate for objectivity in research. sources should be chosen because of relevance of content to argument, not because we agree with content.. otherwise choosing only the ones we agree with will result in a pretty weak argument.

Jojo :-)

If you said the grass is blue, you wouldn't get much of a response, unless your reply was something which is rammed down people's throats on a daily basis. If people who believed the grass was blue were afforded special rights, allowed to run schools to teach about the blueness of the grass, and allowed to fight wars, suppress others, lay claim to land, and generally throw your weight around, purely on the basis of your erroneous beliefs regarding the colour of the grass, then you might get a larger reponse.

As for "instinctively knowing" there there is a God out there. Well, I don't, and I'd wager that the majority of academics don't.

Under science as it stands whether grass is blue or green is verifiable, and can be done so in an objective and quantifiable manner. If I measure how much tea I have left in my mug then we can both do it, we can both use the same or comparable scales and we'll both come to the same answer.

Whether there's a god or not isn't verifiable. One persons belief is another's delusion. It's totally subjective.

So as far as I'm concerned a quote about God, god or gods is only really applicable if it either comes under the same scrutiny as all other sources or has a particular relevance to the subject matter, such as theology. And if the other sources happen to be ones based on actual measurements and objective staples of science then they can't receive the same scrutiny.

"because its pretty obvious. likewise, its pretty obvious that there is a god out there.. and we all instinctively know that. the issue then should not be if there is a god, but who is the true God"

I disagree with this for many reasons.