Science not realizing it is inspired, does not mean it is not inspired.
No. But science being inspired only by human thought, with no divine intervention, completely explains everything we see in science. If you could provide evidence of any divine being that could inspire science, or that such inspiration has happened, then you might have something to claim. If we don't have to back up claims with evidence, then wouldn't a claim that the world is ruled by superintelligent oysters that control us (including science) by mind-control be just as plausible. More plausible really, as we know that oysters exist as does the sea that they live in.
I tend to look at the results...the fruit. Does the fables and origin stories garner faith in God, or doubt?
For quite a number of people, studying the Bible carefully and really understanding what it says was the main cause of their atheism. E.g. Matt Dillahunty.
Also, if the ability of a book to garner faith in a religion shows it to be correct (is this your claim?), then wouldn't that make The Koran and the works of L Ron Hubbard true as they are able to garner faith?
Not all things it enables sinners to do are good for the planet..or mankind.
No, but can you name any system in the world which is solely good. Would you agree that an awful lot of evil is done in the world, inspired by religion?
The thing I said about science is that it enables us to do things. It doesn't actually mean that we do those things. E.g. science is right now enabling us to anticipate destructive changes to our climate due to human action. If we (as a species) fail to act appropriately and doom future generations to a severely damaged environment, that's not the fault of science. It's the fault of those who refused to accept the message.
Dog eat dog animalistic godless morals are not the best set on the block actually.
How so? Anyone who is godless can take the morality from (e.g.) The Bible, and then add better morals. E.g. not keeping slaves etc. Without a belief in a God preventing us from improving those morals and making them more suited to the modern world. So, Godless morals can easily be the best set on the block.
And where do you get your 'dog eat dog animalistic' from? Do you have any evidence that the Godless are any more 'dog eat dog animalistic' than the religious?
Last edited:
Upvote
0