Atheism

[fr0d0]

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.

So you agree with me? This isn't clear.

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*

Stem cell research is a moral question, which is in the religious realm. Homosexuality possibly. Evolution not. So your premise is askew.

Then you are combining stances of certain bodies within the church - the Catholic Church is very large but en masse unrepresentative and controlled by a relatively small minority making proclamations for very many - with orthodox Christian belief. Orthodox belief doesn't change, and it's stance is consistent.

I can quote very many non Christian acts committed by people identifying themselves as Christian. I identify my self as Christian yet most of the time I'm not acting in accordance with my belief. The aim is still perfect, if the execution is misguided.

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.

You have a short memory. You appear from no-where and appear to single me out. I'm flattered whilst at the same time bored.

I apologise for my unwillingness to confront. My rationality tells me this is fruitless. If you appeared genuine to me then I would be more than happy to oblige. You have yet to convince me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Outside the natural universe would not be God. How am I dismissing the idea with these rational rebuts??