Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[DLJ]

...
Most of them haven't studied philosophy or theology and science is perfectly well compatible with God.

Yabut... theology degrees don't count.

Theology is the just the study of the history of ignorance.

[Sword of Christ]

Yabut... theology degrees don't count.

Theology is the just the study of the history of ignorance.

It helps to know what the ignorant believe so you can better educate them with your factual "all this stuff what just exists because no reason for it" thing you believe. It's true because you say it is and you would know.

[Zazzy]

science is perfectly well compatible with God.

This seems to be true for many scientists who are Christian. But it's an individual thing. Since there are thousands of Christians out there who are sects of one- having reorganized their religious beliefs to fit with their scientific knowledge- it depends on the person. YOU may think this is true, and if you do that's a good and reasonable thing. But there are many, many Christians out there who don't or can't or won't reconcile their particular god with science, and they'll openly say that they reject scientific discovery for biblical tenets. How do you know they're wrong?

[Esquilax]

It helps to know what the ignorant believe so you can better educate them with your factual "all this stuff what just exists because no reason for it" thing you believe. It's true because you say it is and you would know.

Why study theology at all, then? We have a perfect example of what the ignorant believe every time you open your mouth, Sword.

Well, I say ignorant, but really you're just dishonest. Your refusal to accept that most of us happily admit we don't know, and therefore don't adhere to this "it all exists for no reason," belief, doesn't somehow force us to believe what's easiest for you.

Besides, what's so terrible about existing for no reason? Isn't it better to determine your own meaning?

[Bob Kelso]

Yabut... theology degrees don't count.

Theology is the just the study of the history of ignorance.

It helps to know what the ignorant believe so you can better educate them with your factual "all this stuff what just exists because no reason for it" thing you believe. It's true because you say it is and you would know.

Oh the irony.

[Zazzy]

Besides, what's so terrible about existing for no reason? Isn't it better to determine your own meaning?

I never understood why this is so terrifying to theists. Being in control of your own destiny is ennobling. What is NOT ennobling is the idea that we are all filthy sinners having to scrabble and scrape to appease a fickle overlord for wrongs committed by a mythological pair long ago.

What do you think is so objectionable about this idea?

[DLJ]

Yabut... theology degrees don't count.

Theology is the just the study of the history of ignorance.

It helps to know what the ignorant believe so you can better educate them with your factual "all this stuff what just exists because no reason for it" thing you believe. It's true because you say it is and you would know.

There you go again, mistaking me for the 'homogeneous atheist'.

I do so look forward to you telling me what I believe. Please continue. It makes for such a healthy discussion, don't you think?

What makes you think I would rise to your bait this time? You've tried that with me before and failed.

I think you missed the word 'history'. But to pick up on your non sequitur there, as it happens, I am an educator of the ignorant. If they were not ignorant, they wouldn't pay me to educate them.

Their ignorance pays my bills.

No, it does not matter to me what they believe when they enter the classroom; my job is to demonstrate a more enlightened path.

And although it is useful sometimes to know their current beliefs so that I can help them understand where they are going wrong, I certainly do not need to know the history of their failings.

[Sword of Christ]

But it's an individual thing.

I would say it's more an objective factual thing seeing as science is the tool we use understand the nature of the universe as we can observe, detect and measure and nothing else. It has nothing to say about God as it's entirely neutral and is it's own independent subject.

But there are many, many Christians out there who don't or can't or won't reconcile their particular god with science

You can say they are "dancing with unicorns".



[/video]

and they'll openly say that they reject scientific discovery for biblical tenets. How do you know they're wrong?

They're wrong because they're opening rejecting something we actually know about as a testable fact. I'm not saying God is a testable fact but a faith. It can be reasonable faith.

[Zazzy]

But it's an individual thing.

I would say it's more an objective factual thing seeing as science is the tool we use understand the nature of the universe as we can observe, detect and measure and nothing else.

Yet other Christians might not agree. It's as reasonable to say that God planted dinosaur bones and fiddled with radioactive decay rates just to fool us, as it is to say that there is a god at all. When you start talking about a being that is entirely independent of the rules of life and matter and energy as we know them, anything- no matter how improbable- goes.

It has nothing to say about God as it's entirely neutral and is it's own independent subject.

I agree that science cannot take a position on the existence or nature of a being that is by definition not bound by any natural laws. But we certainly can use science to look at claims made by religious texts about the nature of the Earth itself, or its history. The problem is that once you start interpreting the holy text more metaphorically, how can you determine if ANYTHING in it is literally true? Where does that slippery slope level out?

You can say they are "dancing with unicorns".

Don't have time to watch the video now, but I like the term. But again, where is the hard line where you stop dancing with something real- like a horse, and start dancing with unicorns? My point is that there are so many gradations of belief among Christians that nearly everybody's theology is different from everyone else's. Everybody can find a way to torture religious tenets into a fit with their own understanding of the world or moral viewpoint. Literalists are on firmer theological ground, since they don't cherry-pick their god's word.

They're wrong because they're opening rejecting something we actually know about as a testable fact.

Happily, I agree. But how do you know that god isn't testing your faith with all the evidence for evolution? It sounds like something he would do. And since he can do anything, and often tests faith, why couldn't he be doing it to you? You may be in as much trouble as I am with him if he exists and if the literalists are right.

I'm not saying God is a testable fact but a faith. It can be reasonable faith.

I am open to the possibility that faith can be reasonable- I just haven't seen much of it. What is considered reasonable is open to interpretation, obviously.

[Tonus]

What do you think is so objectionable about this idea?

Perhaps eternity is irresistible to those who have not experienced it.