I have a question for all of you theists out there: have you *actually* read your "words of god"? The Bible, the Qu'ran, etc. Because, from what I've seen, barely any of you (other than Pastors, Priests, Etc.) have actually read the full [insert religious text here]! It *enrages* me that you are so hypocritical, claiming you know the word of god better than anybody else, when the *atheists* are the ones who have actually read the texts!. That's *why* we're atheists! Because we saw how much crap was in those texts and said "Wow, how could I have believed this? This looks like it may have been written when somebody was tripping out." So, I ask of you theists out there of *one thing*. Read through your religious texts, come back here, and tell me, no, tell *us* if you honestly still believe it all.
I eagerly await your responses, theists.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Pew Research, from 2010.
"On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education."
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
Going over this, I realized I was wrong to categorize all types of theism. That was my bad, I'll admit it. However, my point still stands as that for Christian and Christian branches.
Sure, the Jewish and some specific Christian denominations like Mormonism has a high knowledge about their own scriptures.
But picture it as the Theists view themselves and how they view sceptics:
They often seem to think they know their own scriptures and they often seem think Atheists/Agnostics don't know it at all. When someone points out contradictions in the bible, Theists often seem to think that it's just hate or envy that makes people say that.
The Theists that think like this, are clearly wrong.
Tell them the holy word of the day is legs, they are going to spread them anyway, might as well justify it with religion like everything else..
I am a Christian, and i read the word. For the record, I do not pretend to know every single verse by memory or to be able to explain every perceived contradiction that atheists can come up with in the bible. But what i do know is this. There is way too much truth and beauty and knowledge and wisdom in scripture for me to throw it all away because of a few troubling verses. I would be a sorry Christian with no faith if i did that.
Though i would venture to say that i could well explain most of the contradictions atheists and other critics of the bible come up with, i also realize that it wouldn't make any real difference. As much as i may try to argue or convince any one of His existence, or the validity of the bible, the truth is that if you don't WANT to believe, you wont.
The atheist will see this comment, and ask for evidence for God, and THEN they'll believe, but thats not true, thats a lie. No matter what a theist says to try and convince the atheist that there is a God, his a priori philosophical position will forbid him from believing no matter what evidence is presented. If i say dna and all the information contained in it, the atheist says, random proscess over time. If i say creation ex nihilo, the atheist says a quantum vacuum with rippling fields of evergy, or multiverse or whatevrr else. If i say a highly ordered universe with highly ordered laws and infinitesimaly finely tuned parameters of physics, the atheist will say chance made it happen this way, we are the one universe out of countless others that works this way. If i say morality and the necessity of a moral law giver, the atheist still weasels himself out through more convoluted fancy word play.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
Further, from all the comments I've seen about atheists who read the bible or who say they've read the bible, i realize the following.
1. No you did not read the bible. You may have skimmed parts of it, you may have glossed over other parts. You may even know part of what it teaches, but you have not read it all.
2. Your ignorance betrays you. I need only see how you refer to its scriptures and general teachings to see that you have never fully read or even begun to comprehend the bible's content.
3. You atheists, and in fact many many professed Christians are as children who have just begun to scratch the surface of a most complex and nuanced book. Similar to a kindergartner who with his rudimentary knowledge of arithmetic balks at the seeming absurdity of calculus, the atheist tries in vain to comprehend the enormity of God and his word and inevitability rejects it.
But do you know who it is that says in his heart, there is no God?
I know the type of responses this will probably garner here, i know the ridicule that will probably follow. I'm aware that my words will mean little in the grand scheme of things. I also know that most will read this comment and immediately look for some way to attack me or belittle me or make what I've said seem silly or worse, but, thus is my duty. To always be prepared to give an answer for the faith that i have.
@Believer
I don't speak for all atheists, but I think many will agree.
"The atheist will see this comment, and ask for evidence for God, and THEN they'll believe, but thats not true, thats a lie. No matter what a theist says to try and convince the atheist that there is a God"
No, that's not a lie, your simply assuming that a Theists argument would be valid evidence. Claims without proof to back it up, does not constitute as evidence. In order to convince me, hearsay from people does not come any where near what I would call evidence.
"a priori philosophical position will forbid him from believing no matter what evidence is presented."
No, absolutely not.
As I have said before, I invite Jesus himself to ascend from the heavens and punch me in the mouth for blaspheming. I would consider that as valid proof.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
Ehhh, sorry but, what does that even mean?
"I know the type of responses this will probably garner here, i know the ridicule that will probably follow."
Why would you expect anything but anger and ridicule when you write with a tone of such contempt for atheists?
"1. No you did not read the bible. You may have skimmed parts of it, you may have glossed over other parts. You may even know part of what it teaches, but you have not read it all."
Yes I have. Actually, I had to write it all. My mother, being the pious woman she was, made me write it book by book. It was her idea of "bible study". I even had to write summaries about what I had written, and take tests that she created. So, no, your confidence in this statement is about as grounded in reality as faith.
"2. Your ignorance betrays you. I need only see how you refer to its scriptures and general teachings to see that you have never fully read or even begun to comprehend the bible's content."
While it is possibly true that I never truly "comprehended the bibles content", as reading and even tests do not guarantee comprehension, your assertion that I never read it is false. As to whether or not I comprehended it, well that dispute would be difficult to have, considering not even "believers" or theologians agree on what much of it means. Seems to me that you are simply setting up a framework where your personal interpretation and ideas are the standard, and any who disagree are simply wrong, because your understanding is impeccable.
Seems wholly arrogant to me.
"3. You atheists, and in fact many many professed Christians are as children who have just begun to scratch the surface of a most complex and nuanced book. Similar to a kindergartner who with his rudimentary knowledge of arithmetic balks at the seeming absurdity of calculus, the atheist tries in vain to comprehend the enormity of God and his word and inevitability rejects it."
FFS, really? So the reason why people are atheists, even graduates from SEMINARY, is because they simply can't comprehend the magnificence of the religion you worship? That is simply bullshit, and everybody here can easy recognize it.
"But do you know who it is that says in his heart, there is no God?"
In the bible? Fools. In the real world? People who require more than the bibles say so, and piss-poor arguments, to believe in things.
I'm sorry, some people simply don't believe things without good reason. However, take heart, they are still quite outnumbered by those who do.
It was asked of me what this verse was about "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
It means that we can see aspects of God and understand things about him by observing creation, both of the world and of the things in it.
When i look up at the sky, and when i look through the lens of a telescope and further through the eyes of technology at the indescribably beautiful and unimaginably vast cosmos, i can truly appreciate Psalm 19:1 when it says: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork
It is inconceivable to me that this universe, all of creation, happened on accident. Either God created it, or He did not. But if He did not, then what did? How did the universe come about, through what means? Why did it come about? How is it sustained? How and why does it maintain relative order through laws? Why is what we perceive as reality governed, seemingly unfailingly, through and by these laws?
How can you answer these questions, these and many more i could think of, without there existing a God?
@Believer
Hi
"It is inconceivable to me that this universe, all of creation, happened on accident. Either God created it, or He did not. But if He did not, then what did?"
Of course I wonder the same thing, but I do not feel the demand to know for sure. I am quite content in saying "I don't know".
By inserting "god did it" instead of an answer that is based on empirical evidence, one only satisfies that strong compulsion to know. As I see it, that is just deluding oneself.
If you don't mind, may I ask a few questions? (Just some short replies will suffice)
What denomination you adhere to?
Do you reject the age of the Universe and the Earth?
At what point in your life did you know that you really believed?
You're making the assumption that I'm simply "inserting God did it" into the answer for some of life's toughest questions, I'm not. It's not thats simple.
You then insult me by basiclaly saying I'm deluding myself, then you ask me if i mind if you ask me a few questions?
How would you respond???
Kinda ham-fisted don't you think? I thought that was for the theists?? Haha, but i digress, I'll answer because I'm a nice guy believe it or not, and I'm not easily angered or offended.
I'm a seventh day adventist. I don't reject the purported ages you're referring to.
The last question requires a little more then a short answer, if YOU don't mind and you're actually curious. To some extent, i think I've always believed. Since I was a child hearing the stories of moses and the isrealites, david and goliath, Samson and delilah, it was all so fascinating. Then, the belief was innocent and perhaps you could even say it was culturally conditioned. my parents took me to church and made me pay attention. I learned alot. As i grew and continued reading and growing in knowledge both of the religious and more secular scientific world, my belief was only ever strengthened and further solidified.
"As i grew and continued reading and growing in knowledge both of the religious and more secular scientific world,my belief was only ever strengthened and further solidified."
Just curious.
How did "secular scientific world" solidify your belief in the Noah ark story?
@Believer
Hi again.
Thank you for replying, even though you felt I had insulted you.
I'm going to answer both your above comment and your reply in the thread "valid evidence against Christian beliefs", found here: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/25918
To bring both discussions together.
Before I begin, I would like to make it clear that my intentions is not at all to insult you, but instead to try to improve the constructive conversation.
---
Now, you seem awfully insulted by my comment. I really tried to write it as non-insulting as I could think of:
"As I see it, that is just deluding oneself."
I avoided using the word "you" and added "As I see it", to make it clear that it's just my view point. And in the entire comment I tried to be polite. Yet, you seem to have interpreted this as a very insulting remark.
But in the other thread, when I spoke of your way of writing, you immediately rejected my critique:
"Because i speak with passion about these things? You can't see my facial expressions nor hear the tone of my voice and yet you ascribe spite and insults to my words?
You misunderstand mr. pragmatic. I've never labeled any atheist daft or ignorant or anything worse, what i label as such are the statements they make and the positions they hold"
And you added:
"You shouldn't be so quick to judge my character and attitude with so small a sample size as some comments on a forum, i know i don't."
In your defense, I was referring to both the discussions (both threads), not just that single discussion.
But I have found many of your comments very offensive indeed.
Some examples (My interpretations is marked with an asterisk):
"The arrogance of atheism is absolutely astounding. Not to mention the ignorance."
* Atheists are arrogant and ignorant.
"It is exactly this sort of, quite frankly daft, and ignorant blanket statement that illustrates perfectly the flawed and arrogant attitude of the average atheist."
* The average atheist has a flawed and arrogant attitude.
"The atheist will see this comment, and ask for evidence for God, and THEN they'll believe, but thats not true, thats a lie."
* Atheists are liars.
"No matter what a theist says to try and convince the atheist that there is a God, his a priori philosophical position will forbid him from believing no matter what evidence is presented"
* Atheists mindset is closed and cannot change.
"If i say morality and the necessity of a moral law giver, the atheist still weasels himself out through more convoluted fancy word play."
* Atheists use tactics to "weasel" themselves out of problems.
* Atheists use convoluted fancy word play.
"You atheists, and in fact many many professed Christians are as children who have just begun to scratch the surface of a most complex and nuanced book. Similar to a kindergartner..."
* "You atheists...", sounds like a derogatory remark, grouping together ALL atheists. Kind of like the discriminatory remarks "You black people..." or "You homosexuals...".
* Atheists are like mentally immature children.
"I also know that most will read this comment and immediately look for some way to attack me or belittle me or make what I've said seem silly or worse..."
* Atheists are antagonists.
You also insinuate that atheists are lying about having read the bible. (I don't think anyone here is lying about it. Many have openly stated that they have read parts, have made several attempts, or that they have read almost all of it. But then there are several who have read it all, cover to cover, and often more than once. I myself have made two attempts, but it's just to absurd for me to make it through. But I have read a lot of different parts and I have read about it's history.)
Now, bare in mind that you also claimed:
"I've never labeled any atheist daft or ignorant or anything worse".
I'll give you that the "daft" remark, referred to the comment from an atheist, not the person. But all the other examples refer to the atheists as a group. Even if that is not what you intended, it's how I interpret it when I read it.
Again, this is not to insult or anger you in any way. I just want to try to help improve constructive conversation. Even if your comments are not "over the top" insulting, they are very offensive and immediately sparks an irritation. When you write like this, you will not get polite or constructive replies.
I continuously struggle to review my own mistakes and try to better myself, so I know this sort of thing isn't easy. And as you say, the text medium of a forum is very limited. Unfortunately, that limitation seems to be favoring insults rather than polite conversation, which makes it very easy to seem offending when it's not intended.
---
"I commented elsewhere to someone who said i wont gain any converts here with how i speak and do you know what my answer was? I asked him what made him think that that was my object?"
Yes, I read that comment. That was to the user CyberLN. (just a friendly tip, "he" is a "she" :)
---
I hope that I don't come across as smug or just another a besserwisser. My intention is only to give some hopefully helpful advice.
If you actually read all of this, thank you.
Hello mr pragmatic,
You know, i sure wish we could sit down and talk face to face because this is where it could start getting quite tedious to reply to each other. i could go line by line and answer everything you've said above so as to explain/clarify each point, or i could go off on some even bigger tangent and show how all of what you wrote about me doing and more is constantly demonstrated by other atheists on this very site!!!!
But instead, I'll clarify just a few points, and any you're still wondering about, if you want you can ask me and I'll speak on them as well. Otherwise, the following should suffice as a reply.
"""Now, you seem awfully insulted by my comment. I really tried to write it as non-insulting as I could think of:
"As I see it, that is just deluding oneself."
I avoided using the word "you" and added "As I see it", to make it clear that it's just my view point. And in the entire comment I tried to be polite. Yet, you seem to have interpreted this as a very insulting remark.
But in the other thread, when I spoke of your way of writing, you immediately rejected my critique:
"Because i speak with passion about these things? You can't see my facial expressions nor hear the tone of my voice and yet you ascribe spite and insults to my words?
You misunderstand mr. pragmatic. I've never labeled any atheist daft or ignorant or anything worse, what i label as such are the statements they make and the positions they hold"
And you added:
"You shouldn't be so quick to judge my character and attitude with so small a sample size as some comments on a forum, i know i don't.""""
My case is a peculiar one, i said elsewhere that I'm not easily angered or offended, and i meant it. When i said that you basically insulted me, its because no matter how you try to suger coat
"As I see it, that is just deluding oneself."
The truth underlying that statement is still insulting, it says anyone who does so is deluding themselves, so when applied to me, no matter how nicly you try to put it, you're still saying I'm deluding myself.
Now. This is insulting. Most theists would be insulted by this.
But, while i did recognize and point out the insulting nature of the comment, i still was not myself insulted or offended. What i was pointing out was the potential that statement had to insult and offend.
Bottom line is this mr pragmatic. I wrote in such a way, not being overtly insulting or offensive, with a specific purpose in mind. To give the general atheist community a chance to see what it looks like coming back at them. I fully recognize the weight that words can have and how they can be construed or misconstrued, especially through this particular medium.
The way that i wrote, is a much watered down version of the way that atheists that I've seen on this and other sites, write.
You look at alot of Nyarlethop or whatever his name is comments, jeff vella leon comments, the guy who calls himself "reality", austin hodge, their comments, and you can easily recognize an insulting, offensive, ridiculing style which could easily offend a theist.
But thats not the point, some people actively LOOK for things to be offended by (LGBT community for example), so you'll never please EVERY one. What i wanted was to demonstrate something i think is important. Both sides are guilty of preciselly what you saw in my comments. What i can assure you of is this, i didnt mean to offend or insult anyone with my comments. (see what i just did there)???
"But thats not the point, some people actively LOOK for things to be offended by (LGBT community for example)"
Really? What on earth does that mean?
I think he means that he doesn't see why anyone should be offended at being called an evil abomination, or denied the right to marry, or even told that being yourself is just a "phase" you should grow out of. You see, religion is often as blind and deaf, as it is dumb.
@Beliver
Hi, thank you for the response.
I see your point in trying to illustrate how that sentence can offend. But, I disagree with you.
My personal opinion IS that people of religious faith are self-deluded. EDIT: You could say that I̲ b̲e̲l̲i̲e̲v̲e̲ that people of religious faith are self-deluded.
Now, am I not allowed to say that? It's not a discriminatory, o̷r̷ ̷o̷f̷f̷e̷n̷s̷i̷v̷e̷ impolite or disrespectful statement in any way.
How would you propose I go about saying it, to avoid the offence that could be taken by it's true underlying meaning?
There is a major difference in stating once opinion in a calm and polite way, than to use personal attacks and foul language. I could have singled you out as a person, and instead of writing "As I see it, ...", I could instead have written "As-hat, ...".
If I would have, I certainly could see how you would get offended.
When it comes to the point I was trying to make, you seem to have completely missed or ignored it.
You are very outspoken about what you seem to consider is "bad behaviour" by Atheists.
But when you yourself do not in any way seem to behave better, as I was trying to point out, why would you ever expect polite conversation or constructive discussions?
I fail to see, how behaving like those one condemns while criticizing them for precisely that behaviour, is going to accomplish anything.
As for the language used by other Atheists in this forum...
No Atheist member of these forums have any obligation to be polite, beyond what is stated in the forum rules.
Some Theists are among the most aggressive and hateful people thinkable when discussing subjects regarding their faith or atheism. Many Atheists have been subjected to such behavior, and many have had multiple bad experiences that make them very irritated and/or very fed up.
And I have both read about and been told of complete horror stories that gives chills down the spine and makes the hair stand on end. Deaths, suicide attempts, physical or psychological abuse, and so on. Some people can have had their entire lives ruined and their families torn apart, and be in a situation where every day is a struggle to take one more step to recover from the damage of theism.
I think it's an advantage to refrain from any kind of insults when trying to debate, but that is easier said than done. I have just recently learned a lot about how to not let the emotions get the better of me when debating like this.
What you said in your closing paragraph is highly questionable:
"But thats not the point, some people actively LOOK for things to be offended by (LGBT community for example), so you'll never please EVERY one."
First, don't you think that is every bit as insulting to say to Theists that they are self-deluded, as it is to say what you just did to everyone who either are part of, or have someone very close in, the LGBT community? Imagine the same sentence but, replace replace "LGBT community" with "Seventh Day Adventist movement".
Secondly, I'm sure that there are LGBT individuals who actually fits your description, but to say that the "LGBT community" as a whole, actively looks for things to be offended by, is itself a really offensive statement.
You wrote yourself about how "this sort of, quite frankly daft, and ignorant blanket statement" was condemnable, then you turn around and do the same against a minority.
* interlude music *
@Beliver
Hi again.
I hope I didn't offend too much with my previous post. I got a bit sidetracked and lost focus, so I'm trying to resume my train of thought in this post.
To be perfectly clear with my intentions, I did ask out of honest curiosity about when you became a believer.
If my questions are to invasive, I apologize and there is no need to answer.
As I understand it, you grew up within the Seventh Day Adventist denomination?
"Then [as a child], the belief was innocent and perhaps you could even say it was culturally conditioned. my parents took me to church and made me pay attention."
It's very interesting that you use the words "culturally conditioned" when describing the belief as a child. That is exactly how I would have characterized it (with my limited insight).
Before school, did you ever learn about other denominations, other religions or secularism? I assume that in school you had the regular education classes about the different world religions?
Was there a point in your life where you realized that your faith shifted from, as you said "the belief was innocent", to that you felt that your faith had become serious (for lack of a better word)?
"It was asked of me what this verse was about "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:""
It was? It must have been someone else, somewhere else, because it wasn't me and wasn't in this thread.
"It means that we can see aspects of God and understand things about him by observing creation, both of the world and of the things in it."
Yes, it means that you can assume gods existence by asserting it as the creator of everything, and then point at everything stating that "You can know god is real because it made X, and X exists!" Well, I think unicorns make trees, and trees exist, so...
See how stupid that is yet?
"When i look up at the sky, and when i look through the lens of a telescope and further through the eyes of technology at the indescribably beautiful and unimaginably vast cosmos, i can truly appreciate Psalm 19:1 when it says: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork"
Especially ironic considering the state of Jewish cosmology at that time. There is even a nice, well-sourced, wiki page on biblical cosmology to explain it to people. The REAL universe is wonderfully more vast, and immeasurably more beautiful, than the "god" of the bible could have ever imagined.
"It is inconceivable to me that this universe, all of creation, happened on accident."
I know, that is why most of us that are actually interested in it study physics, and learn that given the behavior of energy and matter, it wasn't simply an accident. The newest emerging interest is the Higgs field, which is what we think may actually give mass to particles, and a more comprehensive understanding of it may allow us to discover much more about the initial states of the "big bang". Now, I don't know if you believe in the big bang, or even modern cosmology, but both fields are pretty necessary to understand the universe. Trying to understand the universe without physics is like trying to understand heredity without genetics, it leads to bad ideas and worse misconceptions.
Also, before you launch into a preemptive cosmological argument that hinges on probabilities, you should know that no one has all the data points that would be necessary to do any type of accurate or useful analysis of the situation. This inevitably makes any such claims pretty much useless as a determination.
"Either God created it, or He did not."
Pretty much a true dichotomy.
"But if He did not, then what did?"
I don't have to know how a ball got in my living room to determine that it is unlikely for a unicorn to have magically created it there, likewise, I don't have to know the specifics of universal creation to determine that an intangible inter-dimensional Gandalf did not poof it into existence, out of nothing, on a whim. Regardless of ANY other factor, the existence of god is questionable at best, making the claims that said god did anything at all even more improbable at the outset.
"How did the universe come about, through what means?"
There a number of competing theories at the moment, which cannot distinguish themselves at the moment because of a lack of evidence concerning the state of the universe before the first Planck second. Once physics is able to unlock the state before the Planck second, we will find more and better evidence as to its cause. Until then, people with and ideological or philosophical axe to grind can continue making themselves look silly on the internet with arguments to ignorance, and the physicists with honesty and reason will continue to tell people that nobody does.
"Why did it come about?"
In many cases, people use why in more of a questioning of intent and purpose than mechanics, which means they expect sentience and will to be a factor. When dealing with inanimate objects, such assumptions are foolish, and without meaning.
"How is it sustained?"
Which part? We know how and why most of it keeps functioning, but now you are being so vague as to mean anything.
"How and why does it maintain relative order through laws?"
A misnomer. In science, "law" is any interaction of objects or energy that are constant and can be formulated as an static equation. As long as more than two particles exist in a plane of space-time, scientific "laws" can be created to describe their behavior. A law in science isn't because something must act a certain way, it is because we consistently observe that something DOES act a certain way. Then we create scientific theories to explain "why" it behaves that way, which ideological people can then ignore and pretend doesn't exist.
"Why is what we perceive as reality governed, seemingly unfailingly, through and by these laws?"
As explained, scientific laws govern nothing. They are not legislated. Anyone using this argument seriously needs to go back to school and learn the difference.
"How can you answer these questions, these and many more i could think of, without there existing a God?"
I once heard a person say that no one could explain a sunset without god and thought, "Wow, surely nobody is so ignorant that they would assume we need to shove their god into every facet of reality to explain it!" Now I realize that I was wrong, and some people are so ignorant they have to assume their god to explain everything, because they simply can't see past their own nose.
"No matter what a theist says to try and convince the atheist that there is a God, his a priori philosophical position will forbid him from believing no matter what evidence is presented." I would just like to point out how IRONIC this statement is. In fact, it is the EXACT opposite of what's actually happening. For hundreds of years, now, science has become the main part of our culture. It has led us to the moon and stars beyond, and explains much of our world in a way that requires looking for the answers and finding them through testing and experiments. However, because this goes against religious beliefs, theists deny every little bit of the science, claiming that their "god's word" is the one and only. No matter what an atheist/scientist says to try and inform the theist that there is no god, they still keep on believing. Because it's their prior belief, and no matter what they'll stick to it: because that's the way they were raised. I was raised to be a bit more... open minded. I wasn't taught religion as a child (for a long portion of my childhood I didn't KNOW what religion was), I was taught to just explore, look for answers to questions I had about our world. And, luck have it, I found science in school. I was amazed, and thus my long passion for science began. My point is, your view on theists trying to convince atheists is, quite literally, the wrong way around.
So ummm, i dont know if you realize this or not, but the latest scientific findings can all be reconciled with the Christian faith. It just takes precisely that, faith.
"So ummm, i dont know if you realize this or not, but the latest scientific findings can all be reconciled with the Christian faith. It just takes precisely that, f̶a̶i̶t̶h̶ mental gymnastics."
There I fixed it for you
Ye-no... As science seems to disprove religion based on the facts found, the findings will never co-exist in harmony, as they are, quite literally, explaining things differently. And, both sides think the opposing side is wrong about their claim, and have evidence to back up what they believe in. The very *fact* that there are so many religions, all them claiming to be true, should be evidence enough that the religions themselves are not, in fact, true. If it was true, or rather, very convincing to the point of everyone believing it, why would there be so many different sects of religion? Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Norse, etc. If the stories were as true as you say they are, they would have gotten the facts straight before trying to explain what they believe. As *my* evidence shows, they clearly failed at that. The reason why all religions are false? Because there's more than one. If there was one, and *only* one, mindset, it would *only* be that way because of the facts presented being true. Otherwise, it would be false, and people would look for their own answers. And, look at that, that's us today.
It depends on whether you are talking about the strict and literal Christianity found in the bible, or the cherry-picking lukewarm Christianity that has been adopted by many because science is irreconcilable with the former. Sure, if you agree that neither the world/universe nor mankind came about how the bible says it did, then you are giving into the modern understanding of science. It should, however, be recognized that you are NOT actually following the bible. The bible makes a number of scientific claims, and each that could or have been tested have been proven false, but then people that are both trying to be reasonable and trying to be christian simply move all goalposts and pretend that the "bible didn't REALLY mean that, or didn't mean it that way!"
So, no, it is only reconcilable if you abandon a great deal of the claims in the bible, and then only just barely.
Also, let me just reiterate something i know I've said by now on some other thread.
Science and religion are not at odds. They aren't fated to forever be in conflict. The real conflict, young Austin, exists in the minds of those who adhere to a certain PHILOSPOHY which then dictates how they interpret data.
Science is a branch of philosophical naturalism, one called methodological naturalism, and as such is completely counter to all supernatural and metaphysical claims beyond its purview. Pretending the two concept do not conflict is like stating that theism and atheism do not conflict, despite them being fundamentally opposed. One cannot simultaneously believe in a COMPLETELY natural universe with COMPLETELY natural mechanics, yet suppose that they are metaphysical and supernatural, that would be an abortion of reason on par with watching the Flintstones like it was a documentary.
Believer -- why would I ever want to read another word from you when all you have is hate in your heart and a mean mouth? I don't think you'll pick up any converts here.
BTW, Mr. Judgmental Holier-than-Thou, I have read the entire bible twice, some parts several times and I have also studied its history. That's why I'm an atheist.
Three things Mr. Thackerie,
1. Where is the hate in my heart and mean mouth in my comment?
2. Who ever said that my object in coming onto this forum and commenting was to pick up converts?
3. Show me where I've been judgemental and I'll show you your misunderstanding of judgement.
Believer-You are in good company as three quarters of the people in the world are "believers". It is true that only Christians who know Jesus will find salvation in heaven. Those who are not Christians but are other kinds of non Christian faiths will go to limbo or purgatory. In purgatory they have the option to "find" Jesus and then go up to heaven. If they "don't come to Jesus they remain in Limbo forever. Atheists go right to hell and are tortured with fire and elephant dung(for eternity)
Dear Fred,
Please, rather than trying to scare Atheists with words from your book, please supply *sufficient* evidence that hell, heaven, purgatory, and limbo are real. And, your bible does not count, it is a two thousand year old book. Your DREAMS and VISIONS do not help, as they are purely mental, and mentality is not physical evidence. So, taking this into consideration, what is your physical, hard, no-doubt evidence?
Pages