Stump the Christian?

[SteveII]

@Cato

Science can test and inform both religion and philosophy. Where science contradicts either of them, then the premise was wrong. The debate comes as to what science has contradicted. It cannot comment on God, it cannot comment on the existence of things outside our universe, it cannot comment on whether God acts within our universe, and it cannot comment on existence of consciousness, an eternal soul, morality, heaven or hell.

[LastPoet]

Nope.

Just the idea that a sovereign God can, has and does interact with His creation occasionally as He deems appropriate.

You are, full of shit. That is the truth.

[FatAndFaithless]

Where science contradicts either of them, then the premise was wrong. The debate comes as to what science has contradicted. It cannot comment on God, it cannot comment on the existence of things outside our universe, it cannot comment on whether God acts within our universe, and it cannot comment on existence of consciousness, an eternal soul, morality, heaven or hell.

So...when there's a conflict between science and theological claims, science is wrong?

And if we can't verify or test or measure or examine something, why the hell would you ever believe in it?

[Longhorn]

I think it's the perfect opportunity to advertise my pink invisible incorporeal magic dragon breeding facility located in my basement

Just send me $10,000 worth of bananananas if you're interested in adopting a pup

[robvalue]

OK, I'm in. Just send me a drawing of what it would look like if I could see it, and I'll take 5.

Oh, my bananas are all invisible and incorporeal too, is that cool?

[abaris]

Many Christians will continue to beat on those two points but no one is going to yield because no one has to at this point. I don't find it productive. 

Only if you find substantiated evidence less believable than unsubstantiated claims. That's the theory of evolution vs the Genesis account.

[SteveII]

Where science contradicts either of them, then the premise was wrong. The debate comes as to what science has contradicted. It cannot comment on God, it cannot comment on the existence of things outside our universe, it cannot comment on whether God acts within our universe, and it cannot comment on existence of consciousness, an eternal soul, morality, heaven or hell.

So...when there's a conflict between science and theological claims, science is wrong?

And if we can't verify or test or measure or examine something, why the hell would you ever believe in it?

In my opinion, within the context that science cannot comment on (the list I gave) if a conflict exists, science would prevail over a religious belief. 

If science cannot measure or test then you would look to other reasons for the belief (because there are many things that exists that are outside the realm of science). That would pretty much be the definition of faith. 

[Drich]

How can I corner, of course with my words, Christians and make them feel they have no choice but admit to rethinking their position or part of their positions when it comes to the bible or their god? I usually go fishing online at conservative news sites like Breitbart News Network. I'll click on a story or headline, look down at the comments and either look for key words that Christians use or post a stimulating comment, which they would of course feel the need to correct me or defend their so called faith. Is there any tools or creative weapons of reason and logic that I can use to stump them?

This sounds like fun, what kind of trickery do you use now?

[abaris]

In my opinion, within the context that science cannot comment on (the list I gave) if a conflict exists, science would prevail over a religious belief.

And in many cases it does just that. From a Western perspective, America is the only country where the borders are still floating. When I entered school in 1969 there wasn't even a debate of what to teach in biology class. Genesis wasn't part of the equation.

[SteveII]

Many Christians will continue to beat on those two points but no one is going to yield because no one has to at this point. I don't find it productive. 

Only if you find substantiated evidence less believable than unsubstantiated claims. That's the theory of evolution vs the Genesis account.

A Christians' explanatory options for life as we know it are substantially more than the atheists' (which seem to be only one). My options range all the way from yours to God did it all in 6 days and everything in between. Like I said before, time will tell which of these options will be removed from the table. I have the luxury of changing my mind as new evidence come to light without turning my worldview on its head. An atheist does not.