Atheist billboards in Atlanta

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Well, it appeared like you had commited the slippery slope fallacy, howver, perhaps I didnt understand you.
Im not against skeptism. Im against over skeptism, I dont think it is healthy to doubt everything and can one really know anything if they are overly skeptic?

I'm sure there was a communication breakdown at some point between one or both of us. I suppose it's irrelevant now anyway - the respective points has been made.

Perhaps I should say, 'Science flourishes in a secular country, even if the majority of scientists are religous?'

A majority? I've seen conflicting statistics on whether religious scientists are statistically in the majority or minority, but regardless, I see that a fair consensus amongst all of the studies I've seen appear to come to the following conclusion:

Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than the rest of the population.

But that's not the most interesting aspect of this all. For you see, if you've clicked on any of the many links I've provided above, I've linked many sites that I wouldn't normally typically use as proof of anything. For example, in an arguement of religion vs. science, I don't consider the Discovery Institute a place a place to go to to prove anything except what religion is saying about science. I would never go to the discovery institute for information on anything actually scientific because they have an agenda to prove, whereas a place like NASA.gov or most professional scientific papers are more interested in truth and facts based on empirical evidence and theories based on that than an agenda.
However, I linked just about everything I could google on atheism among scientists adn linked even the less-than-reliable websites because - even though the more religiously-inclined websites seem to cite a larger perponderance of religion amongst scientists than virtually all of the others, even they still cite a signficantly larger percentage of atheism and/or agnosticism amongst scientists than the general population. Still, other religious sites will actually cite a majority of scientists being non-religious than those with religion.
As such, I consider this fact indisputable to the conclusion that scientists are overwhelmingly atheists or possibily agnostic with a smaller number of religious websites posting a large minority of such scientists.

Very much so! Due to the evolution/creation controversy a lot of effort has been in seeing Genesis one as a Jew back in the good old days, truly incredible! They didnt care about structure, they cared about purpose...

I recall a stand up act done by one Lewis Black (a well known jewish comedian) said something to this effect. Instead of paraphrasing, I'll use the magic of youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj...re=related
As such, it doesn't seem to conflict with my earlier reasoning that religion doesn't change so much as the interpretation of the texts change to accomodate the fact that the world is changing to believe what it believes whether the various religious establishments wish it to or not.
However, this isn't really changing anything other than your interpretation of your own holy texts. It's the eqivelent of rearranging your furnature. Further, it not only doesn't address all of the problems created by a the fact that your own holy book isn't factual in many regards, but it can even create other problems. The fact is that Christians believe that Jesus, as the Messiah, was anointed by God as savior of humanity, and hold that Jesus' coming was the fulfillment of messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.
So, if what you're telling me is true, then parts of the old testiment merely become metaphors -stories- as it were, instead of the literal word of god.
How does a christian reconsile this without throwing away basic tenants of your faith considering that only the interpretation of the old texts have changed and not the content?

You see, science doesn't have this problem. There are no books to be reinterpreted as new information and discoveries arise because everything that needs to change - be the very concept of how the universe came to be and will one day die or how life can evolve on this or other planets - then it will change. Scientists' only dogma is the pursuit of truth. No respectable scientist claims to have it.
If something changes, books can and will be rewritten.

What you've told me above is absolutely nothing like this.

However, the professionally religious - the priests, rabbis, and those of that nature - are precisely the ones you've stated have committed 'intellectual suicide' - assuming they still actually believe what they're preaching.

How so? Im attending to spend my entire life as a Pastor, I couldnt think of anything better (Either going into youth ministry or apologetics/philosophy)

Because, generally speaking, their respective faiths require that they teach their own respective faiths. From my understanding, in order to be Christian, the literal word of god is understood to be written in the Old and New Testiments.
Given your statement:

Christians who only read KJV commit intellectual suicide

(just to note, I did catch the 'who only read the KJV' portion of that statement)
I can only surmise that, regardless of whether those priests and such read other books on theology, the KJV bible is still the very core of the Christian faith and all of the issues, falsehoods, contradictions, and other problems that fall with it.

I should also note that while I've been saying that Catholocism has accepted certain scientific ideas, this creates major problems that I'm not aware have been reconsiled with their beliefs.
After all, how does a catholic believe in evolution and big bang and reconsile that with one of their core foundational beliefs of the "Original Sin" without an adam, eve, and all of the creationism that follows?

I disagree. Without Christian, I would be a normal young Australian, getting drunk on the weekends doing stuff with women...Christianity has kept my mind sharp, I have read the Bible for myself and looked deep into certain theology. If I wasnt a Christian I would of commited intellectual suicide...

That's rather anecdotal - the same story could be said of many individuals who became atheists after spending much of their lives trapped within the confines of their religion. The same could be said of someone who joined alcoholics anonymous, 'came out' as gay to their friends and family, joined the military, went back to school for a higher education, so on and so forth.
I think your joining christianity is better proof of you simply getting your life together in a satisfactory manner to you than anything that specifically has to do with religion or your religious faith. That is to say, it is because of you and not christianity.

Is it 'God of the Gaps' fallacy or is there infact a creator? To my knowledge, more scienists are seeing the evidence that there was most likely some sought of being who created the universe.

Actually, the statistics say the opposite. Scientists are becoming increasingly secular and have been since (according to one of those statistics I provided above) 1917.

I agree wtih you, however, the resurrection has considerable weight for me. I was more so convinced by the evidence than some sought of 'experience'

Why? What evidence is there of a resurrection of any human who has been dead at that point in time in history?

In my honest opinion, the only thing one should get from the Bible is the plan for redemption, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22...
The Bible doesnt tell us what happens when you die
Or give us morality (As Dawkins points out)
Doesnt explain the problem of evil

It shows a plan for redemption, a plan I want to apart of, that is why I will put my desires on hold and live my life the best I can...

any why that part of the bible and nothing else? Why is some parts metaphor, but jesus' existance and god's providence and everything else true but the bible is all metaphor except for Jesus' resurrection?