Atheism

[fr0d0]

So what your saying is you never will voice any opinion in discussions of science and reference it to religion?

The two are separate subjects, neither are about the other. They can reference each other withing those boundaries, but not proclaim authority over what isn't their realm.

Okay ... so what your saying is that they are seperate, but can comment on each other but, their comments aren't valid?

It would seem that if they are seperate subjects as you claim that they could not reference each with any merit or point at all, needless to say I disagree with that statement.

Christianity addresses the human condition, science addresses observable fact and theorises over the physically existent. Show me how either subject has validity with the other. As Dawkins rightly complained, religion had no business in dictating to science. Demonstrably so IMO.

Because, the last time I checked the Church has recently begun to accept Evoloution! A Scientific Principle. It would seem to me that rather than me chasing my tail, as it was. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to!

The church has always accepted it. Only modern error has been any different.

I'm sorry, for a second there it looked like you claimed the church has always accepted evoloution. Surely you don't believe that? I think it is reasonably well documented invarious forms of literature that many bishops and cardinals still do not accept it as fact.

No. The church's default stance was acceptance. Preceeding ignorant dogma Christianity is pro science. That some members of the church didn't is their error.

I haven't asserted your belief's, I have made comments based on my experience of the kind of God that other christians have described to me.

How can you possibly say that me requesting a description of your beliefs is ignorance? or a lack of understanding? You have never expressed exactly what they are so I am working with what I have.

I have (and never would) ask you to be my educator Fr0d0 I have merely asked you to clarify your beliefs so I can know exactly where you are arguing from ... as of yet, you have not done so.

And what is the point of this detour? Why am I yet again to be diverted by your agenda? Discussions of this nature are completely pointless. You and I have done this before. You want to get to the bottom of something that you vehemently oppose and would not ever consider. I find it hard to motivate myself to such a self destructive end. I simply have no investment in this discussion and will withdraw as it is void of purpose for the reasons stated. Good luck with your search. Sincerely.

What I said was that a new phonomena would have to be analysed within the currently accepted 'Laws of Nature' if it was found to be outside of these laws, a new theory would need to be generated. This theory would have to account for the New Phonomena whilst also accounting for everything the old Theory did as-well and also stand up to scrutiny.

If it was impossible to reconcile this new phonomena with a theory that also could be applied to the rest of the universe then we could start to consider other possibilities i.e. God

I completely disagree. There would never ever enter into any consideration the possibility "God". For one: the definition "God" would have to be satisfied.. so it would break the first rule that God cannot be provable. If anything falls into the natural realm it becomes natural. God being supernatural breaks the theory again. And so you'd go on.