Atheism

[Sam]

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.

Sorry ... My opinion was that religion should never reference science at all if it claims they are so distinct, as in the religious opinion they have no validity against one another.

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.

Sine when is the church's default stance acceptance? I seem to remember more than a few christian oppositions to new scientific and social advances e.g. Stem Cell Research, Evoloution, Open Homosexulaity?

So again, please provide an example of when a scientific fact, which directly contradicts the Bible has been immediately and openly accepted by the church. I would think if you actually check back you will see that many new break throughs where condemned by the church en mass not just by a few individuals.

*Thinks about citing the Galileo story*

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.

Have we done this before? Of cours it suits you to satrt claiming detours and withdraw from the discussion it protects you from having to fairly and reasonably justify your beliefs with something more than faith ... which from your numerous (failed) attempts to prove that faith is the only acceptable basis we know you simply cannot do.

Since when have I said I vehemently oppose anything, I consider everything in a spirit of reasonable enquiry. I only oppose it if I find it wanting in several key areas. You just assume that I wouldn't consider it to justify your premature withdrawl from the discussion.

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.

Maybe they wouldn't be able to say that 'Yes that phonomena was caused by God' but something more like 'that phonomena was caused by something outside of the natural universe' which by definition means they accept that something could exist outside of our natural universe and therefore allow the provable possibility of God.

So you see your definition of God as the only supernatural agent at work would mean that all the scientist would have to do is prove the existnce of a supernatural realm. Again you have closed your mind and dismissed by idea to suit your own ends.

Sam