So now your story changes. I just proved your first premise and argument incorrect. The Fact is that science said the earth was flat. Science also said that the sun revolved around the sun. Both were proven wrong. accepting science as infallible truth is ignorance at it's best.
Who said science was infallible? Not anyone that understand science.
yet when there is evidence against it people like you plug your ears and go uh huh. so you are kind of doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing.
Not all evidence is the same. You don't understand that, or you refuse to acknowledge it.
no there is no problem what it shows is that attempting to act as if science is an infallible truth is ignorant. while science can explain many things it cannot explain everything. there is a limit in what science can explain. even the stuff it does try to explain changes.
Of course it does, but science has always brought us closer to the truth, if that weren't so medical technology would get better and then worse, CPU's would stop getting faster, planes would just fall out of the sky's for unknown reasons. You don't understand and I accept that no matter what I tell you, you will continue to create these strawman assertions.
you have a doctrine of belief whether you realize it or not.
Whatever you want to call it. My beliefs can change based on new information. Religion on the other hand has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. Remember that the Church proposed the sun was at the center of the universe? People that opposed that position weren't embraced but vilified, called heretics.
yet it is quoted as fact of statement and anyone that criticizes it is supposedly ignorant. now that they have determined that the big bang was really not possible,
the people that have said this for years are not so ignorant.
The ignorance lies, not with you're position, but the fact that you can't just admit that it's faith and you need to vilify science because it conflicts with ideas that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Eye witness accounts are dubious at best, and would never count as "scientific" proof.
In history we use eyewitness accounts to corroborate events, but with any of those events, no one calls events from several thousand years ago "fact". Would you agree that the the dozens of eyewitness testimonies of alien abductions, Sai-Baba miracles, Bigfoot sightings, and encounters with Elvis are true?
Never mind the historical fact that the Gospels we read today were written centuries later, and are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of originals that were written between 40 and 100 years after Jesus had died. Never mind that. That's the low hanging fruit of arguments against the notion of eyewitness testimony. That's too obvious. We don't even need to go there.
Then you just invalidated about 90% of the history books we have because well they were all considered stories at one point. in fact that is how we piece together history is by those stories.
No I didn't, no one forms their ideology based on history. We take it in stride. Looking back on claims in history is not how we form our morality, but a useful guide to making future decisions. However, no one is deciding what to do today based on events for 2000 years ago.
wrong we have a historically accurate event written by a person who is known as one of the most accurate historians in that day. this person was an associate of the people that knew Christ. so he had first hand account information of what happened and or occurred during that time frame.
so please provide evidence or backing that any of the people that he recorded was lieing or deluded. the burden of proof is on you since you are the one making the claim.
You have to prove that the people writing it are lieing. this you cannot do.
And if I fail to prove it wrong you think you are fully justified to accept it as fact.
Sorry, that's not how you accept facts and neither do I, if that were the case all religions would be true, but that would lead to obvious contradictions. No the burden is on you my friend.