In the case against religious theism, what is so damning...

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
...is not that the universe is so easily explained without invoking a god (it isn't), it is that the existence (and proliferation) of these theistic religions is so easily explained without invoking a god.

^I haven't actually bothered to think about this yet...it just popped into my head while I was bored in class...and since I haven't spent much time in SMP as of late, you all get to hear it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

discuss

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it before and I said it again. You can argue your head green using the nature sciences against religion and you will at some point butt your head into the wall of absolutes.

When you take the social sciences you can explain why it is there without even reflecting on the idea of a god, you can show why religion came to be even if there is no god.

And as I have said before, this obviously doesn't mean this and that science is better than that other science or anything like that - they're just different.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people go to scientists to learn about God? That's like taking a toothache to a cardiologist.

[/ QUOTE ] Why is a scientist any less qualified to talk about the superstitions of man then anyone else? Its probably safe to conclude they're more educated and probably more intelligent then your 'average Joe.' The world of science is also in the position to test many of the claims made by different religions.

Note- Splendour... Are the you person that he was writing to that fell silent when pressed for details? If not, its odd that you answer for him since you likely have no information.

On another note, the OP said that the person he was corresponding with said that 1/2 the scientists he spoke with said that Science backed up his beliefs. And when pressed for details, he shut down. You then suggest that science can't answer the questions... so, I guess you're pointing out that the theist who 'shut down' was just wrong?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He's not an expert on science. He's an expert on other disciplines' aspects that he probably thinks you have no interest in.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know his friend and what his friend is an expert in. Wow. these forums do confirm the small world.

luckyme

[Splendour]

Kurto a scientist is certainly just as qualified as anyone to study the bible. The problem may be in the bias they approach with. The bias may blinker them from doing a thorough research along other lines that the theological person would be willing to show them. Science isn't the only route but it may be the most controversial route to discovering the existence of God right now.

As far as interpreting the behavior of that minister I'm basing my interpretation on the bible. It basically says not to quarrel. The reason for not quarreling is to avoid any wrongful words or behaviors that can cause both quarrelers to sin. This idea is repeated all over the bible. We're suppose to be known for our love not our pride. As for the extent of his scientific knowledge: There are a lot of books being written on this subject so he may know something. Whether or not he would remember all the details to engage a trained man of science in a scientific debate would be another matter.

You're suppose to be able to take a leap of faith based on the Gospel (the Good News).

[No_Foolin'?]

[ QUOTE ]
He's not an expert on science...

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly. But he's making a categorical assertion regarding science, and by doing so takes on the responsibility of providing a basis for his assertion, which he refuses to do.



[ QUOTE ]
He's an expert on other disciplines' aspects that he probably thinks you have no interest in. Sceintists themselves can't decide about evolution and intelligent design (Darwin vs. Newton) and you want a clergyman who's suppose to know issues of faith inside out to know this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no interest in this whatsoever. He introduced science into the discussion when he began to argue that the earth is 7000 years old, evolution is impossible, and that the Big Bang never happened. Our entire discussion prior to this pertained to text of the Bible proper.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Sceintists themselves can't decide about evolution </font>

This statement is so untrue, you should be charged with libel for making it! Nothing could be further from the truth! The overwhelming majority of scientists whole-heartedly accept evolution! Even the ones that are themselves theists.

Seriously... A statement like that makes me seethe. How can you just post lies like that?!?!!

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Kurto a scientist is certainly just as qualified as anyone to study the bible. The problem may be in the bias they approach with. </font>

Won't you PLEASE stop for a minute and think about what you're typing?

Who's more likely to be biased about the bible? Someone who has their entire world view wrapped up in it? Or someone completely dispassionate and unassociated with religion and no alterior motives?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Kurto a scientist is certainly just as qualified as anyone to study the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Splendour... The discussion isn't about who can study the Bible. Its about who is more qualified to make a critical analysis of the claims the Bible makes about the real world. So, a scientist is in a better position then a clergyman to discuss the merits of Biblical claims like 'the age of the Earth' and 'was there ever a worldwide flood', etc. So, you're already starting off with the wrong premise. Anyone can study the Bible and discuss beliefs. A clergyman doesn't necessarily have any of the required knowledge to discuss how well his belief in the supernatural holds up to the scrutiny of someone who relies on more evidence then Faith.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as interpreting the behavior of that minister I'm basing my interpretation on the bible. It basically says not to quarrel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, try not to be foolish. The bible and your interpretation of it have pretty much no bearing on a conversation between two people that you are not privvy to. Its things like this that makes other theists beg you to stop making Christians look bad.

[Splendour]

I'd say read the bible for yourself. Don't let that guy or science be stumbling blocks for you. Probably want a study guide type bible that helps you understand things better. It would have footnotes and things to help you understand ancient history and traditions. The bible is pretty amazing. Its slow going at first but the more you read it, the more the interrelationships make sense. Its a unique book.

[No_Foolin'?]

[ QUOTE ]
Science isn't the only route but it may be the most controversial route to discovering the existence of God right now.


[/ QUOTE ]

The preacher wasn't trying to prove the existence of God to me. The entire subject simply came up as a matter of course during our discussions.



[ QUOTE ]
The reason for not quarreling is to avoid any wrongful words or behaviors that can cause both quarrelers to sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one said anything about quarreling. We were having a very civil discussion. All we were doing was exchanging ideas and information.



[ QUOTE ]
As for the extent of his scientific knowledge: There are a lot of books being written on this subject so he may know something. Whether or not he would remember all the details to engage a trained man of science in a scientific debate would be another matter.

[/ QUOTE ]


If the preacher knows a thing or two about science, he needs to be very careful about making generalizations about an entire population of scientists who know far more than he does about the subject matter at hand (e.g. the age of the earth, evolution, the Big Bang).

One of my main problems with this preacher's ideas was the way his generosity toward knowledge quickly disappeared when his facts came into question: When it came to matters of correctly and carefully interpreting scripture, the preacher was on point. He had studied Greek and could discuss all nuances of tense and meaning of the exact words used in biblical text. In fact, he carefully examined and scrutinized the entire Bible, and insisted upon providing as much evidence as possible for his interpretations, which on the whole were quite reasonable and quite persuasive.

On the other hand, however, when his categorical assertions regarding the conclusions of science were questioned on the most basic level, he had no answer. He didn't even attempt an answer. He simply stopped talking.

My conclusion: Ridiculous behavior for someone who prior to this had been so insistent upon providing evidence for his conclusions. Quite evidently an instinctual and highly self-protective reaction.