The Decline of Christianity in the West

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
You are free to show the science taught in science class is wrong and a lie. You see, science curriculum is based on well evidenced science, not some book someone wrote 2000 years ago.

Science teachings do not discuss religion, they discuss well evidenced science.

What of the many kids and parents that want their kids taught legit science curriculum, should your religious beliefs cause them to change what they teach?

Let it be optional if it's so important to instill in everyone that they are accidents which appeared from matter which itself has no origin.

Science is itself flawed. It allows only things observable and repeatable to be proved possible, and thereby, by its own methods, rules out anything supernatural without any consideration. Then, it says, "Use OUR methods, which don't allow for the possibility of the supernatural, to prove the supernatural."

DogmaHunter · Jan 3, 2015

Achilles6129 said:
People in the West now no longer believe the Bible. This is true of the general public and also true of modern Christianity where there seems to be a great loss of faith in regards to the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. Why do you believe this is the case?

Easier access to proper education.

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
Do you live in a country were you are free to worship the God of your choosing?

Do you live in a country where you can attend the church of your choosing?

Do you live in a country where you are free to teach your children any religious belief of your choosing?

Do you live in a country where you are free to not engage with people who do not agree with your religion in your church and in your home?

When any of the answers to the above are no, then you can cry persecution.

Why do you get to define persecution for everyone? Are there not degrees of everything? Just because I don't get the worst doesn't mean it isn't there.

Why do atheists think themselves above the restrictions placed in everyone else?

Ken-1122 · Jan 3, 2015

Albion said:
I'd think that it's more accurate to say that they just switch preachers.

I disagree! with teaching; everything taught is up for question; with preaching it is not.

Ken

bhsmte · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
Let it be optional if it's so important to instill in everyone that they are accidents which appeared from matter which itself has no origin.

Science is itself flawed. It allows only things observable and repeatable to be proved possible, and thereby, by its own methods, rules out anything supernatural without any consideration. Then, it says, "Use OUR methods, which don't allow for the possibility of the supernatural, to prove the supernatural."

Why would a core class like science be optional. Do you want the United States to fall further behind the rest of the world in education.

You are typing your messages on this board because of science. You drive a car because of science. You receive medical care because of science. Your home has heat, a television and a refrigerator because of science. All of this and you want to make the subject; optional?

So you want science to acknowledge something it can not measure and observe? That would not make it science now, would it.

Acknowledging the super natural and or Gods is what your religion is for and remember; you are free to worship the God of your choosing, attend the church of your choosing and teach your kids the religious beliefs of your choosing, knock yourself out.

bhsmte · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
Why do you get to define persecution for everyone? Are there not degrees of everything? Just because I don't get the worst doesn't mean it isn't there.

Why do atheists think themselves above the restrictions placed in everyone else?

You acknowledge then, you have the freedoms that I spelled out regarding your own religious beliefs.

And persecution? Try being an atheist in the United States.

In Atheists We Distrust - Scientific American

DogmaHunter · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
Perhaps not explicitly, but laws are becoming more preferential to atheists than any other belief system. For example, my son is required by the state to attend school and there he will be told by an authority figure that he is an accident and that when his parents and pastors told him he was a precious being created in the image of God, it was a lie. If he answers according to his faith on a test, his GPA will suffer. Just one example.

Atheism is not a belief system.
You should inform yourself before posting.

As for the rest of your post... same old fundy garbage: strawman and ignorance

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Atheism is not a belief system.
You should inform yourself before posting.

As for the rest of your post... same old fundy garbage: strawman and ignorance

People always think that what they believe is above what everyone else believes, and that all others are ignorant. What's new?

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
Why would a core class like science be optional. Do you want the United States to fall further behind the rest of the world in education.

You are typing your messages on this board because of science. You drive a car because of science. You receive medical care because of science. Your home has heat, a television and a refrigerator because of science. All of this and you want to make the subject; optional?

So you want science to acknowledge something it can not measure and observe? That would not make it science now, would it.

Acknowledging the super natural and or Gods is what your religion is for and remember; you are free to worship the God of your choosing, attend the church of your choosing and teach your kids the religious beliefs of your choosing, knock yourself out.

Do I want to make science as a whole optional? Not necessarily. But this theory which has been shoved down everyone's throats and gets anyone who questions it kicked out of all scientific circles without hesitation... yeah, that should be optional.

You reiterated my point exactly. Science is flawed. It does get some things right, for sure, but its methods rule out possibilities before considering them. For people who claim to be open to anything, that's a bit silly.

bhsmte · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
People always think that what they believe is above what everyone else believes, and that all others are ignorant. What's new?

It would appear you believe your personal belief structure is above everyone else's to the point of needing to change science curriculum's on public schools, because your religious beliefs disagree with it.

bhsmte · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
Do I want to make science as a whole optional? Not necessarily. But this theory which has been shoved down everyone's throats and gets anyone who questions it kicked out of all scientific circles without hesitation... yeah, that should be optional.

You reiterated my point exactly. Science is flawed. It does get some things right, for sure, but its methods rule out possibilities before considering them. For people who claim to be open to anything, that's a bit silly.

Clearly, you have no idea how science works and what it relies upon.

Do you agree with the theory of gravity? Do you agree with germ theory?

If you do, here is one devout Christians take on how the theory of evolution compares to the same and this Christian happens to have pretty good credentials to have an opinion on this topic:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if youre not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than youre essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. Thats the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwins theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didnt know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
It would appear you believe your personal belief structure is above everyone else's to the point of needing to change science curriculum's on public schools, because your religious beliefs disagree with it.

I never asked for my belief to be taught in public schools. You ARE asking that yours be taught there.

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

I'm fully aware that proponents think there is enough evidence. That goes without saying. There are countless objections, holes in the theory, which go ignored by the scientific community constantly, and those who raise objections are soon ousted from ever doing anything in the realm of science again. This sounds decisively cultish to me.

DogmaHunter · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
People always think that what they believe is above what everyone else believes, and that all others are ignorant. What's new?

Atheism is defined by what a person does NOT believe.
It's not a belief system. It's the lack of one specific belief system.

Whatever atheists individually believe is independent from their lack of beliefs in theism.

You can misrepresent it all you want, but you're just going to end up with a strawman with no point at all.

bhsmte · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
I never asked for my belief to be taught in public schools. You ARE asking that yours be taught there.

I would ask that legitimate well evidence science be taught in science class, which is not my belief structure, but is backed with ample objective evidence.

If you can provide ample objective evidence your belief structure is correct and the current scientific claims are wrong, go for it.

Albion · Jan 3, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Atheism is defined by what a person does NOT believe.

That seems to be what the atheists here want it to mean. But then again, abortion advocates want to be called proponents of "women's reproductive health rights," too.

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Atheism is defined by what a person does NOT believe.
It's not a belief system. It's the lack of one specific belief system.

Whatever atheists individually believe is independent from their lack of beliefs in theism.

You can misrepresent it all you want, but you're just going to end up with a strawman with no point at all.

Only if you try to falsely label it such. This is the kind of circular argument which atheists use to try and convince everyone that what they believe (or don't, doesn't matter) should be given preferential treatment to everyone else.

DogmaHunter · Jan 3, 2015

BornAgainBrian said:
I'm fully aware that proponents think there is enough evidence. That goes without saying. There are countless objections, holes in the theory, which go ignored by the scientific community constantly, and those who raise objections are soon ousted from ever doing anything in the realm of science again. This sounds decisively cultish to me.

There are holes (= unknowns) in every theory. That's why we still train scientists... to study and plug the holes with evidence based explanation.

I note that you call this intellectually honest practice to be 'decisively cultish', which would ve hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Your entire technological society was build using this 'decisively cultish' practice.

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
I would ask that legitimate well evidence science be taught in science class, which is not my belief structure, but is backed with ample objective evidence.

If you can provide ample objective evidence your belief structure is correct and the current scientific claims are wrong, go for it.

Here, again, is the silliness of science. What you are saying is, paraphrased,

"Using my system, which inherently doesn't allow for anything supernatural to be proven, and nothing else, you must prove the supernatural, else I win."

I hope everyone else can see how silly that is.

BornAgainBrian · Jan 3, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
There are holes (= unknowns) in every theory. That's why we still train scientists... to study and plug the holes with evidence based explanation.

I note that you call this intellectually honest practice to be 'decisively cultish', which would ve hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Your entire technological society was build using this 'decisively cultish' practice.

All of society was built on people who kicked anyone out who questioned them?

The Decline of Christianity in the West

The Honourable Schoolboy

Code Monkey

The Honourable Schoolboy

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Code Monkey

The Honourable Schoolboy

The Honourable Schoolboy

Newbie

Newbie

The Honourable Schoolboy

The Honourable Schoolboy

Code Monkey

Newbie

Facilitator

The Honourable Schoolboy

Code Monkey

The Honourable Schoolboy

The Honourable Schoolboy

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency