The Decline of Christianity in the West

[BornAgainBrian]

I guess you didn't learn science in science class.

Now you've gone to just trolling whoever disagrees. Bravo.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The accusation I make is adhering to a system which eliminates the possibility that anything supernatural, even if present and existent, cannot be proven, and then require that anyone use that system to prove such.

How do you differentiate what exists from what doesn't exist, if not through objective evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Now you've gone to just trolling whoever disagrees. Bravo.

I would encourage you to engage anyone on this board, how your own posts relate to you understanding how science works.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

That is, as i said several times now, entirely about the grounds on which the ideas are proposed.
You can't challenge a scientifïc evidence based theory with relgious faith based assertions. How hard is it to understand?
Consider challenging the scientifc explanation of thunder with religious assertions about a certain viking god and his hammer.
When and if you understand why that will fall on deaf ears, try to understand why the fundi theist 'challenges' to biology are in the exact same boat.
You challenge established science with better science. Not with religious assertions.

So what if someone brought that up. If science is really as open minded as it claims, it would give the Thor theorist a chance to test, to research.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Tough? It would be tough to disbelieve something like that, since it means you have absolute assurance that there is zero evidence anywhere in the universe to point to a deity. That's what atheism is. Sound reasonable? Not to me.

Brian,

One thing we may want to keep in mind as Christians is that what someone like the Apostle Paul would have thought about as 'evidence' for a Creator would have been a far cry more general than what Creationists today (or ID proponents) would cite specifically as 'evidence.'

If we go beyond the basic ideas of the Apostles, we move into a cognitive and philosophical space of suppositions that can actually hurt Christian faith. This is something that today's Christians have not yet learned it seems. We should not be asserting that we see more than what God Himself has given us through His Word.

Peace

 

[BornAgainBrian]

How do you differentiate what exists from what doesn't exist, if not through objective evidence?

If objective means eliminating entire categories, then pretty much anything would be worth at least trying.

As it stands now, science writes off the majority of humanity as being part of some mass delusion simply because its system can't compute.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

I would encourage you to engage anyone on this board, how your own posts relate to you understanding how science works.

Engage anyone using only things you believe, you mean, right?

 

[bhsmte]

Engage anyone using only things you believe, you mean, right?

Straw man.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Straw man.

How so, or is that just something you throw in there sometimes?

 

[bhsmte]

How so, or is that just something you throw in there sometimes?

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

I asked you to engage anyone on the board as to how your posts relate to you understanding how science works.

You changed my original statement = straw man

 

[BornAgainBrian]

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

I asked you to engage anyone on the board as to how your posts relate to you understanding how science works.

You changed my original statement = straw man

Your original post wasn't very clear, and there was no intent of misrepresentation. Would you clarify?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

If there are holes in an established scientific theory, how come nobody is willing to publish anything for peer review?

Ken

 

[andy b]

i used to worry about stuff like this but now i don't care ...i try to spread the word but if people dont or wont listen thats gods will ..if i die the last christian i will be happy because that the lords will

 

[BornAgainBrian]

If there are holes in an established scientific theory, how come nobody is willing to publish anything for peer review?

Ken

I imagine nobody is able to make it that far in the process for the incredible bias.

 

[Ken-1122]

I imagine nobody is able to make it that far in the process for the incredible bias.

Anybody can publish something for peer review! If you found flaws in (for example) evolution; you could publish it and if nobody is able to find flaws in your findings, you would become rich and famous as the man who dispelled Evolution! How do you think abiogenesis got discredited?

Ken

 

[BornAgainBrian]

Anybody can publish something for peer review! If you found flaws in (for example) evolution; you could publish it and if nobody is able to find flaws in your findings, you would become rich and famous as the man who dispelled Evolution! How do you think abiogenesis got discredited?

Ken

Never did much consideration on abiogenesis, to tell you the truth.

I'll have to see if there are published reviews, then, for all the books already out there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

There's a fair number of possible reasons/contributing factors....

One such reason would be access to information. I doubt there was ever a time in history when so many christians and atheists were engaging each other in religious conversations. Historical aspects of christianity that most christians never encounter in church are being revealed to them online. I would imagine the realization that certain aspects of christianity are different from what one may have been taught their whole life would have a rather serious impact upon the average christian.

Another reason may be the reduction of stigmas surrounding groups that christianity had traditionally demonized in the past (and the present). We also have the internet to partly thank for this... but over the past 100 years the social stigmas surrounding gays and atheists[bless and do not curse]has reduced. As such, little christian children grow up next door to or going to school with these people. If a friend you've grown up with is one of those people your church tells you is wicked or hellbound in god's eyes... I think it's pretty natural that you might begin to question what's being said in church every week.

There's many more reasons like these that could also be considered contributing factors... but I think the biggest reason is the one that's inherent in the discussion between the faithful and faithless....truth. I'm of the opinion that reason and logic speak louder than any preacher ever could.... even if the truth is something you'd prefer not to hear.

Eventually, truth wins out.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Tough? It would be tough to disbelieve something like that, since it means you have absolute assurance that there is zero evidence anywhere in the universe to point to a deity. That's what atheism is. Sound reasonable? Not to me.

That's not what atheism is.

So what if someone brought that up. If science is really as open minded as it claims, it would give the Thor theorist a chance to test, to research.

The Thor theorist has the same opportunity to support his claims as anyone else.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is being closed.

Please read Philosophy of Religion vs. General Apologetics, which includes:

Philosophy of Religion vs. General Apologetics

Philosophy: Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. -- Concise Encyclopedia

Philosophy of religion is a philosophical study of religion which seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, including the nature and existence of God, rather than examining or arguing against the theology of a particular belief system. The philosophy of religion is rational, critical thought and exploration of general religious themes and concepts. Philosophy of religion is focused on investigating religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion. The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers. We ask that you would show respect for the Christian faith and not make posts which insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Threads which staff determines are intended for the sole purpose of attacking or arguing against Christianity will be closed.
​

This is not the place for General Apologetics