Questions about Christianity

postmortemjoe said:

The above debates I had with drich0150 and GrayAngel demonstrate exactly why I didn't want the Bible listed as a reference, simply because everyone has their own interpretation of it and it literally can mean anything to anyone. If the Bible is in fact the truth, then there would most definitely be hard evidence of god's intelligent design in the world around us.

Click to expand...

postmortemjoe said:

Actually, the multitude of different religions only proves how susceptible to superstition humans are. All religions originated in a time of little to no scientific advancement, the people of the time had no other means to explain natural phenomena and, as such, attributed these phenomena to a supreme creator or god-type figure.

Click to expand...

postmortemjoe;5845780} Science had actually changed there view on the flat earth theory said:

the why is irrelevant. It is man injecting a purpose where, so far, there is none.[/b]

Also, the five "proofs" of Aquinas don't actually prove anything. They state that if x happens it must be due to god, no supporting evidence, just "faith". These proofs are in essence, today's Intelligent Design, which is a pseudo-science that doesn't teach us anything about the world we live in based on no hard evidence that hasn't been debunked (the breakdown of the bacterial flagellum, the eye, etc).



Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. With reason there is no faith, it is simply not needed because logic and reason have shown the truth, so there is no need to have faith. As Richard Dawkins said:

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

quote]


Time restraints means I cannot answer all your questions right now. I'm not a fan of spoonfeeding, if you are genuinely interested, I would advise you do some research on your own outside of this Forum and actually speak face to face with a Theologian/Priest/Bishop/Pastor etc.

Time, language, timezones, work, miscommunication, lack of knowledge, all these factors affect the quality of information you are receiving here.

Would you agree that before Science proved the Earth is spherical in shape it was widely taught and accepted for hundreds of years that the Earth was flat. There was NO scientific evidence that the Earth could be anything other than flat. Yet, there were Scientists who doubted it, questioned it.

What I am saying is that essentially that is exactly what non-believers claim. There is NO evidence therefore it can be dismissed without consideration. That is an impoverished view of the world.

Would it not be wiser and intellectually honest to say CURRENTLY there is NO scientifically acceptable evidence of God or (that the Earth is spherical) but that may change in the future.

In the highlighted part above, Dawkins is not allowing for Science to evolve, to discover or create Theories in the FUTURE which may challenge his view. Basically, he is saying "this is it, Science has proven its point based on LACK of evidence". How can Science prove a negative? If he is claiming that there is NO evidence therefore it can be dismissed without consideration. That would be an impoverished view of the world.

I am interested to know the names of the people the Church executed for not believing the Earth was flat and your Source.

The majority of people think about the 'WHY' we are here, when they are in crisis or get that rare quiet moment to themselves.

If you don't think our lives don't serve a purpose than I don't know what to say to that. I have never met anyone religious or atheist who has not pondered the WHY of our existence, if only for a fleeting moment.

Most atheists I know are quite inquisitive about the WHY's although they would look to philosophers like Aristotle and Plato etc.

Blessings

Click to expand...