That is incorrect, he himself never wrote that. Otherwise, interesting myth, though.
What is incorrect is disputing the issue of whether he wrote it, when that issue was never asserted. He did say it, though. To me. And apparently... to some others. Including perhaps some who wrote of it... and created a record by doing so. Some years ago I tried to get my doctor to see that I was diabetic. He, with all of his years of "experience"... AND based on test results... said I was not a diabetic. And so, my medical record stated... as a matter of FACT... that I am "Not a diabetic." "Not" was even underlined. Later, I tried to convince another doctor that I was not a Type 2 but a Type 1 diabetic. He denied that... based on when I was actually diagnosed as a diabetic (although I had complained of my symptoms for a few years prior). My record THEN said, as a matter of FACT... "Not a Type 1 diabetic. Patient is a Type 2 diabetic." Both the "Not" and "Type 2" were underlines.
Of course, all of the insulin I've taken over the years... and what I take now... as well as the results of the RIGHT tests... disputes those "facts". Now. Was I not a diabetic back then? The "facts" said I wasn't. What does this say to ME? That I know me... and what's happened/happening to me, although others might dispute/disagree. So what? They don't have to BE me.
Bingo. Even when the Bible or religion says something untrue, the truth remains.
Indeed. For example, when the first says that my Lord SAID (versus wrote) that he is the Truth. Which is the truth... and remains. As for the comment, the same would apply to science... even when it says something is true/untrue. Maybe science is right... maybe science is wrong. 'S'all I'm sayin'... nohmsayin'?
The truth that none of those things is or evidence-based remains true.
I would disagree... based on what constitutes "evidence" (faith is not blind, but based on evidence - indeed, it is the EVIDENT demonstration of reality... and just because there is a modern definition does not mean it is the only definition)... as well as science's own tenet that, "based on what we know NOW". Hence, the truth YOU speak of is based on what you know NOW... pursuant to what science knows NOW... which, as you and others often admit... is subject to change. Personally, I don't care if others agree/disagree (which is apparently a difficult thing for many if not most people - they base their faith... and, for some, their LACK of faith... NOT on what they know... but on what others SAY they should/should not know.
I don't roll that way, though - what I know as a result of my faith is not based on whether others agree or disagree as to its truth. If I did... it would not be FAITH... but consensus. It is based on evidence given ME, things that have occurred with ME... that I have heard and/or seen... and that's all I can share with others. Now, if they can't receive that... no worries on MY part - I don't share to MAKE anyone else believe anything. I share it just in case there are others who (1) might be having similar experiences; (2) believe such experiences can occur; and/or (3) want such to occur for them. If they don't... hoo-rah - no skin off my teeth, loss of sleep, or worries. That someone doesn't believe I've had such experience(s)... is their problem, not mine.
If they say they DON'T believe it... but can't seem to stop thinking, talking, disputing, asking, or arguing about it... MY rational and logical mind says they're lying, that their lack of belief is NOT true... no matter how loudly they protest that it is. Because it is not RATIONAL... or even logical... that someone who DOESN'T believe something would expend SO much time and effort THINKING, let along talking, disputing, asking, or arguin about something they don't believe in.
I can't imagine Richard Dawkins and I having more than a 5-10 minute interchange, if that, and then completely leaving one another to our respective faiths/paradigms. I can see spending a LOT more time with Stephen Hawking, though. A LOT more time, actually...
I find it strange the "fall back" response of believers, challenge the existence of god and they fall back on Abiogenesis or the "where did the Universe come from" question, ignoring the challenge to prove god's existence.
I don't think ALL believers do this; however, I find it curious that you don't mention non-believers doing pretty much the same thing when asked to prove that God does NOT exist.
Speak of Facts and proven science and they start to question the meaning of the word truth, not examine the said facts or science.
I don't think this is entirely true. I mean, I agree that SOME believers don't examine "the said facts or science." But you and others tend to think that examining such facts/science... and still not agreeing with the hypotheses... is not an examination of said facts or science. For me, it's the same fallacy used by the WTBTS: if you don't agree with us it's because you didn't examine the evidence/facts/theology/science. Many have done that, in detail... and still just simply don't AGREE. Your position is that "IF you examined... you can't BUT agree." Isn't that what they (the WTBTS) say? Hence, again, why I could never ascribe to either camp: I see absolutely NO difference in the "doctrine" of both, which is "Believe as we do based on what WE say is fact/truth/evidence... or there's something wrong with YOU mentally." NEITHER camp will say, "Okay, so you don't come to the same conclusion(s) as we do. No worries - our beliefs are not based on whether you do or don't."
I've never really been a "Go along with the herd because there's truth in NUMBERS... particularly as to those things many believe..." kind of girl. I am more of a "few are the ones finding it", chick, myself...
Strange, they do not do their cause a lot of good that way.
Au contrare... as the comment above regarding atheism being the minority view, dear one. Religion wants... NEEDS... to grow its supporters and adherents. And it's been doing that from Day One. And so, they are more than doing their cause good; the numbers show that and have for some time. Science has jumped on that same bandwagon, where the position is that "almost everyone accepts that...". And I'm okay with that... because I understand the "broad and spacious road"... and that it isn't necessarily limited to "religion", as we usually mean that word.
Faith, however, isn't about religion any more than it's about science (although it gives much more credence to science because of its motive: to TRY and find truth, as it relates to the physical world... in contrast to religion that, for the most part, purposes to lead people AWAY from truth... and the Truth... as that relates to the spirit world). And it (faith) isn't dependent upon the beliefs of others. It is based on evidence... that demonstrates the REALITY... even if such is not beheld (seen) with the physical eyes.
Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish to, IMHO. They are not entitled to tell me what I canNOT believe, though. Such is not only a global, national, and state HUMAN right... but the ONLY right that is FULLY free-willed.
A doulos of Christ,
SA, who really, truly... really... doesn't care if someone doesn't agree with me or believe as I do as that is not the basis on which I rate them as loved ones... or friends... except when they infringe upon MY freedom in that regard. Then, well... it might get dicey. I'd have to do a lot of praying...