Can science justify atheism in people that don't understand science?

[SiderealExalt]

Science is the endeavor to determine, and increase human knowledge of how the physical world works: unless god/s is a part of the physical world then how does science say anything about god/s? Theology deals with god/s.

I've seen this oddity tackled on many occasions in a few books. It's an argument from assumption. You need to first show that a metaphysical anything exists, that deities as an intelligible term exists and that theology is a valid and accurate form of determining facts, not simply wish thinking.

 

[SiderealExalt]

If you believe this, then you had best never marry!

Good thing marraige has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Please note that love, too, can't be objectively proven. And it's always possible your partner is only acting--playing a role to trick you for nefarious reasons possibly not related to you!

Appealing to irrationality and emotions is fine if you're simply stating that those are realities of human nature. Appealing to those as some sort of backdoor way of saying the supernatural exists is just plain bs.

 

[SiderealExalt]

May I ask you to elaborate on this astrophysical evidence which runs contrary to the doctrine of an active Creator?

Doctrine of an active Creator? Good thing that's not a scientific term. There is no theory of divine Creator, there isn't even a scientific hypothesis of a divine Creator. or even of the "divine' either. So I know where the burden of proof lies on this one.

 

[SiderealExalt]

It seems to me that if more of the science-worshiping types actually learned some real science, they'd see that they are putting a disproportionate level of trust in it

I can only assume that your choice of words is simply an ad hom and not a real indication that any single person on this thread is a "science worshiper" or thinks that current scientific knowledge is unchangeable and ineffable.

We tend to leave that our knowledge is of something unchanging and ineffable to the people with the Bibles.

On whom the burden of proof lies is a matter of academic convention. There exists no objectively true standard for that. However, your question is beyond the topic of this thread, which is whether there is any link between atheism and (presumably natural) science.

If by a matter of academic convention you mean you made an assertion and I'm asking you to back it up, sure. If by that objectively true standard part, well I can take this two ways. One I can assume you mean this in some sort of all science is tentative way. Which I seriously doubt. Or in a naval gazing effectively useless for any meaningful discussion way. Which I don't know, but suspect is the case.

But when someone says science(nothing presumable about it's methodological naturalism) and claim it doesn't deal with some aspect of the universe( the supernatural) I expect people to lay some groundwork.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Why not let science answer the questions science was intended to answer, and let the philosophers (theologians or secular) answer the questions their field is intended to answer?

It is frankly, idiotic for someone to assume that a philosophical answer exists in the same arena as one dealing with science. However, the vast majority of religions do not simply say oh well our answers are simply about how people want to feel about their existence. Most religions say no, this is in fact how the universe, our world, human existence works. Objectively. And that's when it steps on toes religion should not step on.

For a religious person to back peddle after such a thing and simply say no no no that's not what I meant is simply a non answer from expediency. If religion would simply tell us all that they REALLY don't believe in magical jewish Godmen and supernatural super beings, it's really just a way of looking at life in the end. I'm sure we'd all be a little happier.

Contrary to you science-worshipers, Arumna and I are actual physicists. We know what natural science can do, and what it can't. We keep physics and metaphysics apart, and so should you.

Again I can only assume you are using that term is slander. Regardless, a fact should be clear to anyone reading this post of yours. Being a smart individual, and/or a physicist doesn't change that both smart people in general and physicists can form all kinds of irrational beliefs based on, maybe well thought out and organized, are irrational unproven foundations.

And again, lay the groundwork for this nebulous, unproven supernatural realm before claiming that it exists and is separate from the natural one.

 

[Futuwwa]

But when someone says science(nothing presumable about it's methodological naturalism) and claim it doesn't deal with some aspect of the universe( the supernatural) I expect people to lay some groundwork.

And I expect that, since you are the one going against what every scholar of the epistemology of science claims, you take up the burden of proof on this one. To claim that that which science can't deal with doesn't exist is, for a naturalist, a leap of faith. Even you evangelical atheists make this implicit admission when arguing against ID being science by referring to the way it makes claims that cannot be tested scientifically. I agree.

As for the existence of things metaphysical, consciousness would be one.

It is frankly, idiotic for someone to assume that a philosophical answer exists in the same arena as one dealing with science. However, the vast majority of religions do not simply say oh well our answers are simply about how people want to feel about their existence. Most religions say no, this is in fact how the universe, our world, human existence works. Objectively. And that's when it steps on toes religion should not step on.

I don't see how postulating a creator acting as a prime mover intrudes on the realm of natural science. If natural science cannot explicitly disprove it, it by definition does not.

 

[SiderealExalt]

And I expect that, since you are the one going against what every scholar of the epistemology of science claims, you take up the burden of proof on this one.

To claim that that which science can't deal with doesn't exist is, for a naturalist, a leap of faith. Even you evangelical atheists make this implicit admission when arguing against ID being science by referring to the way it makes claims that cannot be tested scientifically. I agree.

As for the existence of things metaphysical, consciousness would be one.

Ah the I can't prove a thing, so I'm passing the buck method. Impressive.

Anywho, no, consciousness is not a metaphysical concept. Thanks for playing our game.

I don't see how postulating a creator acting as a prime mover intrudes on the realm of natural science. If natural science cannot explicitly disprove it, it by definition does not.

See someone's earlier pink bunnies question.

 

[arunma]

I assume you mean a specific Christian docterine?

Actually I was referring to generalized theism (a bit surprising, given that I am more averse to non-Christian theism than I am to atheism). But sure, why not?

Before philosophy was highly integrated into the interpretations of the current docterines, people had a much more simple understanding of how gods interacted with them.

As opposed to modern times, in which astrologers claim that planets can impart their essence to infants via neutrino interactions, despite the fact that the neutrino mean free path is orders of magnitude larger than the radius of even the largest solar planets? Believe it or not, one of my fellow astrophysics grad students at work subscribes to astrology, along with a host of other superstitions such as ouija boards, crystals, etc. And he isn't alone. A few years ago in India there was a push for astrology to be offered as a B.S. program at major universities. Many of the proponents held scientific PhDs from legitimate institutions!

My point is this: superstition exists in modern times just as it did in ancient times. And apparently, a scientific education doesn't effectively shield one from believing such things. Likewise, skepticism of superstition existed in ancient times. If my memory is accurate, the character of Hecuba in The Trojan Women denied Helen of Troy's claims regarding the myth of the three goddesses who visited Prince Paris and incited the Trojan War. This is significant because the play was written quite awhile after the Iliad, and reflects skepticism of earlier Greek superstition. It seems to me that your views concerning superstition are a product of the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and not of scientists, who don't have much of a unified position on this issue.

And might I add that since I differentiate Christian doctrine from blind superstition, you may be arguing a strawman here.

The heavens were literally the clouds and stars (which were not differentiated) this was the physical place where gods or God dwelled. They ascribed anthropomorphic qualities to all natural phenomenon.

Perhaps you can demonstrate why you say that this is true. The Bible clearly differentiates stars from clouds (compare Genesis 1:1 and 1:16). As to the usage of the word "heaven," this is not merely a phenomenon in ancient language, it occurs in modern English too. The phrase "the heavens" is used to refer to the celestial realm. And there is a clear distinction in both modern English and Biblical Greek between the heavens and the dwelling place of God. The ancient Hebrew cosmology referred to three heavens: a first which refers to the sky, a second which refers to what can be seen in the celestial sphere, and a third which refers to the dwelling place of God. An example is found in the Bible:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. (2 Corinthians 12:2)
​

In any case, to say that clouds and stars are not differentiated from one another is simply incorrect.

As to your claim regarding ascribing anthropomorphic qualities to natural phenomena, I'll have to ask you to elaborate, since I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The newer religions seem to have integrated the fact that god or gods can't be seen, heard, touched, or tasted in any literal sence of thoes words. Or at least "not anymore".

Actually the Bible itself says that God is invisible to many of the senses:

To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15)
​

As to the claim that God cannot be heard, I'm not aware of any such Biblical teaching, so you'll have to cite the one you're thinking of. On the contrary, I know of many believers in Jesus Christ who claim to have heard the audible voice of God.

just as every believer puts disproportionate level of trust in their divine theologians and authors of their bible, koran or whatever. i'd go with a scientist, before a 2nd century or middle century mystified arabic, jew or any other speaker for religion or any other mystified theologians.

Disproportionate? I think not. Believers in Christ place our trust in the voice of God himself. Those who effectively worship science are placing their trust in a discipline which doesn't even make any claims of absolute truth.

But since you claim to trust scientists, surely you can trust me (I learned physics from a source slightly more reliable than Wikipedia). Trust me, then, when I say that science doesn't do the things you think it can do. It doesn't let you peer into the supernatural, it doesn't disprove the existence of the supernatural, and it doesn't give meaning to your life. Futuwwa's example regarding the ruler is quite apt.

 

[TaleSpin]

I often see people that are atheist, because of what the science tells. But I usually also see the same people don't really understand the science they use to justify their view. So don't this make this kind of people just as religious as anyone else, since their view is not based on knowledge, but belief?

Take a scientist out to lunch and tell them that given the great respect you have for their position as a member of the scientific community you'd like to ask them a "big" "important" question. When you are finished with lunch look them straight in the eye and ask "Dr. Scientist; you are intelligent, respected and from a good field... tell me, why are we here?"

They'll tell you "for lunch"

Science doesn't justify atheism atheists have merely taken it upon themselves that "science' does since science left a huge question mark regarding God. Science doesn't really concern itself with prooving things do not exist; since it's empiracle and can't address esoteric questions.

 

[Futuwwa]

Ah the I can't prove a thing, so I'm passing the buck method. Impressive.

That's intellectual honesty, knowing what a certain methodology can be used for and cannot. It might irk you that the methodology of natural science cannot be used to answer every question, but that's how it is, and your discontent doesn't change that.

To state that that which cannot be investigated through the scientific method doesn't exist is an epistemological doctrine, not science.

Anywho, no, consciousness is not a metaphysical concept. Thanks for playing our game.

How is it not? Can it be measured? Can its existence be shown by empirical means?

See someone's earlier pink bunnies question.

See my reply to it.

 

[Rasta]

Actually I was referring to generalized theism (a bit surprising, given that I am more averse to non-Christian theism than I am to atheism). But sure, why not?



As opposed to modern times, in which astrologers claim that planets can impart their essence to infants via neutrino interactions, despite the fact that the neutrino mean free path is orders of magnitude larger than the radius of even the largest solar planets? Believe it or not, one of my fellow astrophysics grad students at work subscribes to astrology, along with a host of other superstitions such as ouija boards, crystals, etc. And he isn't alone. A few years ago in India there was a push for astrology to be offered as a B.S. program at major universities. Many of the proponents held scientific PhDs from legitimate institutions!

My point is this: superstition exists in modern times just as it did in ancient times. And apparently, a scientific education doesn't effectively shield one from believing such things. Likewise, skepticism of superstition existed in ancient times. If my memory is accurate, the character of Hecuba in The Trojan Women denied Helen of Troy's claims regarding the myth of the three goddesses who visited Prince Paris and incited the Trojan War. This is significant because the play was written quite awhile after the Iliad, and reflects skepticism of earlier Greek superstition. It seems to me that your views concerning superstition are a product of the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and not of scientists, who don't have much of a unified position on this issue.

And might I add that since I differentiate Christian doctrine from blind superstition, you may be arguing a strawman here.



Perhaps you can demonstrate why you say that this is true. The Bible clearly differentiates stars from clouds (compare Genesis 1:1 and 1:16). As to the usage of the word "heaven," this is not merely a phenomenon in ancient language, it occurs in modern English too. The phrase "the heavens" is used to refer to the celestial realm. And there is a clear distinction in both modern English and Biblical Greek between the heavens and the dwelling place of God. The ancient Hebrew cosmology referred to three heavens: a first which refers to the sky, a second which refers to what can be seen in the celestial sphere, and a third which refers to the dwelling place of God. An example is found in the Bible:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven--whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. (2 Corinthians 12:2)
​

In any case, to say that clouds and stars are not differentiated from one another is simply incorrect.

As to your claim regarding ascribing anthropomorphic qualities to natural phenomena, I'll have to ask you to elaborate, since I'm not sure what you mean by this.



Actually the Bible itself says that God is invisible to many of the senses:

To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Colossians 1:15)
​

As to the claim that God cannot be heard, I'm not aware of any such Biblical teaching, so you'll have to cite the one you're thinking of. On the contrary, I know of many believers in Jesus Christ who claim to have heard the audible voice of God.



Disproportionate? I think not. Believers in Christ place our trust in the voice of God himself. Those who effectively worship science are placing their trust in a discipline which doesn't even make any claims of absolute truth.

But since you claim to trust scientists, surely you can trust me (I learned physics from a source slightly more reliable than Wikipedia). Trust me, then, when I say that science doesn't do the things you think it can do. It doesn't let you peer into the supernatural, it doesn't disprove the existence of the supernatural, and it doesn't give meaning to your life. Futuwwa's example regarding the ruler is quite apt.

I think you misunderstood my point. I think Christianity is "one of the newer religions that have integrated philosophy into it's docterines.

Humans have exsisted for roughly 200,000 years. Christianity has been around for 2,000. Likewise, Christianity was being developed after philosophy had become culturally more widespread. This is only 1% of the time we have been around.

Durring thoes 200,000 years many "docterines" of an active creator have exsisted. Many of thoes (docterines) held beliefs which are in direct conflict with scientific understanding.

Polytheism predated monotheism by thousands of years. It was first claimed by Egyptians, then refined by Canaanites who renamed themselves Isrealites. Then the greeks integrated philosophy, and Christianity was born.

We look back to these widely held beliefs of polytheism now and laugh. Of course the planets are not gods (greek), of course the gods don't live on a mountain (greek), of course the sun doesn't need sacrifice to rise (Aztec), of course we are not made of dirt (many).

Yet we forget that these primary beliefs helped to shape the current beliefs of the dominant religions that are present today. The connections can be seen clearly if you but look.

 

[Bombila]

Take a scientist out to lunch and tell them that given the great respect you have for their position as a member of the scientific community you'd like to ask them a "big" "important" question. When you are finished with lunch look them straight in the eye and ask "Dr. Scientist; you are intelligent, respected and from a good field... tell me, why are we here?"

They'll tell you "for lunch"

Science doesn't justify atheism atheists have merely taken it upon themselves that "science' does since science left a huge question mark regarding God. Science doesn't really concern itself with prooving things do not exist; since it's empiracle and can't address esoteric questions.

I always try to preface any broad declaration about 'Christians' or 'theists' with the word 'some'. As in 'some' atheists have merely taken it upon themselves that "science' does...

If you actually have read many atheists' deconversion stories, apart from those at Dawkins' site, and including the many who have described their loss of faith in multiple threads on CF, you would know that most atheists have not deconverted as a direct response to 'science'. A few have, mostly as a response to the attack on reality posed by creationists. Nor do most atheists subscribe to the idea that science can prove or disprove anything regarding a god's existence.

You are right that there is little sense in conflating a knowledge of science with a rejection of theism, as there are plenty theist scientists, although fewer of them than atheist scientists, if I am recalling the data correctly.

Confirmation bias plagues us all. We remember who we have debated over our own favourite bugbear, and not the many other people who extended different opinions and different bugbears.

 

[Rasta]

Can you quote the section where you think I've made a claim of a creator in this thread? I made a claim concerning a claim. I claimed that a particular claim is a metaphysical claim.

Ok, how do you know it's metaphysical?

Of course not, that was never claimed either. The solidity of the theory would have to be determined by philosophical discourse, not the scientific method.

That depends on the claim of course.

 

[SiderealExalt]

That's intellectual honesty, knowing what a certain methodology can be used for and cannot. It might irk you that the methodology of natural science cannot be used to answer every question, but that's how it is, and your discontent doesn't change that.

It has nothing at all to do with irking. It has to do with you making a claim, then when asked to back that claim up, you give hyperbole. Yet you expect people to swallow the tripe unquestionably. If you want to make a claim, try to back it up.

How is it not? Can it be measured? Can its existence be shown by empirical means?

It's a state derived from a physical object(the brain). It's not a magical mystical thing. Your a physicist, so I'm sure a smart person like yourself, would not find it difficult to talk to someone who specializes in the physical properties of the brain.

I'm still waiting for something of substance more than you making an assertion, not backing it up, then using the old theistic, all knowledge is tentative argument.

 

[TaleSpin]

I always try to preface any broad declaration about 'Christians' or 'theists' with the word 'some'. As in 'some' atheists have merely taken it upon themselves that "science' does...

If you actually have read many atheists' deconversion stories, apart from those at Dawkins' site, and including the many who have described their loss of faith in multiple threads on CF, you would know that most atheists have not deconverted as a direct response to 'science'. A few have, mostly as a response to the attack on reality posed by creationists. Nor do most atheists subscribe to the idea that science can prove or disprove anything regarding a god's existence.

You are right that there is little sense in conflating a knowledge of science with a rejection of theism, as there are plenty theist scientists, although fewer of them than atheist scientists, if I am recalling the data correctly.

Confirmation bias plagues us all. We remember who we have debated over our own favourite bugbear, and not the many other people who extended different opinions and different bugbears.

lol... "deconvert" ? Are you fur-ril?

FAIL.

 

[arunma]

I think you misunderstood my point. I think Christianity is "one of the newer religions that have integrated philosophy into it's docterines.

Thank you for clarifying.

Humans have exsisted for roughly 200,000 years. Christianity has been around for 2,000. Likewise, Christianity was being developed after philosophy had become culturally more widespread. This is only 1% of the time we have been around.

Which philosophy are you referring to? Stoicism? Epicurianism? There are a lot of philosophies that existed in ancient times, and modern philosophy has been created from a rather large sampling of ancient and modern philosophers (modern examples include Descartes, Kant, etc.). I would have to disagree with your suggestion that philosophy as it currently exists was in any way familiar to the Biblical authors.

I think it would greatly aid this discussion if you clearly define what you mean by "philosophy." To which philosophers are you referring, what philosophical principles do they teach, and in what way have they informed Christian doctrine?

Durring thoes 200,000 years many "docterines" of an active creator have exsisted. Many of thoes (docterines) held beliefs which are in direct conflict with scientific understanding.

If I'm reading you correctly, it appears that your argument is based on the premise that early Christians recognized a contradiction between previous religious beliefs and known scientific evidence, and thus created the notion of an abstract and transcendant God who would conform to science. There's a serious flaw in this argument: what we would call "science" didn't even exist until well over a thousand years after Christ. People who lived two thousand years ago believed that lightning was due to the activity of the gods, same as people 100,000 years ago. If this is the premise of your argument, then you should be aware that it rests on anachronism.

Polytheism predated monotheism by thousands of years. It was first claimed by Egyptians, then refined by Canaanites who renamed themselves Isrealites. Then the greeks integrated philosophy, and Christianity was born.

The problem is that this isn't accurate history. Polytheism did not originate with the Egyptians. In fact, given that Egyptian civilization is fall less than 200,000 years old, this would contradict what you yourself have posited regarding the evolution of human religion. For example, Hinduism predates the dynasties of Egypt, and unfortunately Hindu polytheism persists to this very day. There's no evidence (at least none that I am aware of) which suggests that Canaanites renamed themselves Israelites. Finally, Christianity in its ideal, Biblical form does not rely on any of the Greek philosophies (again, which philosophy are you referring to?). The New Testament is very clearly written from a Hebraistic perspective. It makes use of Hebrew worldviews, uses Hebrew idioms, and even redefines Greek words with Hebrew meanings (the Greek logos used to refer to Jesus Christ being an excellent example). The New Testament was written to a far more universal audience than the Old Testament, is thus written in the Greek language, and is set in a largely Greek world. It seems to me that you may be misunderstanding this for a use of Greek philosophical principles.

Even if I cast aside these historical and literary errors, your theory suffers from one more flaw. It makes perfect sense, and is supported by absolutely no evidence. It is reminiscent of a parable based on my own field of work. In the nineteenth century it was believed that a lumniferous ether permeated all of space, and acted as an absolute reference frame. This ether served as a theoretical mechanism for explaining atomic magnetism. It was postulated that through the ether travelled pairs of positive and negative charges, which remained indetectable on a macroscopic scale. These particles would enter electrons, and travel along different paths inside the particle, exiting on the opposite side. This would result in a net electric current, which supposedly gave the electron its observed magnetic moment. Now this theory is quite elegant, and absolutely wrong. Though I do not find your theory to be elegant (no offense intended), I think the same principle applies here. Without evidence, ad hoc statements, even those that make perfect sense, cannot be regarded as accurate.

We look back to these widely held beliefs of polytheism now and laugh. Of course the planets are not gods (greek), of course the gods don't live on a mountain (greek), of course the sun doesn't need sacrifice to rise (Aztec), of course we are not made of dirt (many).

I disagree. It is not the ancient polytheistic beliefs that I mock, but modern religions. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism (in its current form) and Buddhism all depict a god(s) who is terribly unconcerned with intrinsic human depravity, and who only desires for you to either obey a list of rules that he has created, or invent your own rules and obey them. Ancient polytheists practiced human sacrifice because they knew that there was a God who was terribly angry at their sin, and that he demanded propitiation in the form of blood sacrifice. Their folly was their belief that the blood of mortal, sinful men could atone for them. Instead, God himself provided propitiation by means of the blood of his Son. Though ancient polytheists committed terrible sin by sacrificing their own, they at least recognized that humans are at enmity with God, and are in need of blood atonement.

Yet we forget that these primary beliefs helped to shape the current beliefs of the dominant religions that are present today. The connections can be seen clearly if you but look.

But given the lack of evidence from which your theory suffers, this logic results in conspiracy theories. If I could convince you that the government controls us by repeated displaying of the number 5 in public venues, you'd probably notice the number 5 more often. Likewise you're paying attention to the similarities between the doctrines of the Bible and false religions, and ignoring the notable dissimilarities. Besides this, the Bible itself suggests that we ought to find certain similarities between the true Gospel and the various false religions of the world, since God manifests himself in part through the natural world (Romans 1:20). The idea of blood atonement is an excellent example.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I disagree. It is not the ancient polytheistic beliefs that I mock, but modern religions. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism (in its current form) and Buddhism all depict a god(s) who is terribly unconcerned with intrinsic human depravity, and who only desires for you to either obey a list of rules that he has created, or invent your own rules and obey them. Ancient polytheists practiced human sacrifice because they knew that there was a God who was terribly angry at their sin, and that he demanded propitiation in the form of blood sacrifice. Their folly was their belief that the blood of mortal, sinful men could atone for them. Instead, God himself provided propitiation by means of the blood of his Son. Though ancient polytheists committed terrible sin by sacrificing their own, they at least recognized that humans are at enmity with God, and are in need of blood atonement.

Sounds an awfully lot like Christianity should be added to that list you have.

If I'm reading you correctly, it appears that your argument is based on the premise that early Christians recognized a contradiction between previous religious beliefs and known scientific evidence, and thus created the notion of an abstract and transcendant God who would conform to science. There's a serious flaw in this argument: what we would call "science" didn't even exist until well over a thousand years after Christ. People who lived two thousand years ago believed that lightning was due to the activity of the gods, same as people 100,000 years ago. If this is the premise of your argument, then you should be aware that it rests on anachronism.

I agree. Of course, I also note that leaves quite a nice grounding for noting that ancient religion, Christianity included dictates an idea of the universe and of Earth that is unequivocally incorrect in practically every aspect.

The problem is that this isn't accurate history. Polytheism did not originate with the Egyptians. In fact, given that Egyptian civilization is fall less than 200,000 years old, this would contradict what you yourself have posited regarding the evolution of human religion. For example, Hinduism predates the dynasties of Egypt, and unfortunately Hindu polytheism persists to this very day. There's no evidence (at least none that I am aware of) which suggests that Canaanites renamed themselves Israelites. Finally, Christianity in its ideal, Biblical form does not rely on any of the Greek philosophies (again, which philosophy are you referring to?). The New Testament is very clearly written from a Hebraistic perspective. It makes use of Hebrew worldviews, uses Hebrew idioms, and even redefines Greek words with Hebrew meanings (the Greek logos used to refer to Jesus Christ being an excellent example). The New Testament was written to a far more universal audience than the Old Testament, is thus written in the Greek language, and is set in a largely Greek world. It seems to me that you may be misunderstanding this for a use of Greek philosophical principles.

Should it not then be pointed out that Hebrew theology not only changed quite a bit from it's original structure(which from what I read was decidedly not monotheistic) but also that those religious beliefs were also influenced by surrounding cultures. I don't find Christianity to be the unique snowflake of religion, rather the opposite.

 

[peepnklown]

I agree with you to an extent.

You cannot place god/s under the microscope nor use physical methods to test for god/s thus, you’ll have to deal with god/s with theology.

 

[SiderealExalt]

You cannot place god/s under the microscope nor use physical methods to test for god/s thus, you’ll have to deal with god/s with theology.

No religion has ever shown that theology is a reliable method of obtaining accurate knowledge.

 

[Bombila]

lol... "deconvert" ? Are you fur-ril?

FAIL.

What exactly is your problem with this word?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deconvert

Is there a point to your 'lulz'?