Christianity is Dead, Long live the rEvolution!

[Bow Before Zeus]

Ration can't beat religion . Why ? Because religion for many people represents comfort, of course you will say that you can have emotional comfort without religion , and that is true but what is the reason for a religious person to let go of his comfort ? For most there is none, this is the reason why science can't destroy religion , altough it may prove that religion is wrong in some cases it doesn't give emotional comfort( psychologi does but many people go there just for clinical issues, not very popular in many countrys, in mine it is almost non-existent) , without a replacement of religion people won't leave it behind .

You can also say that ration can beat emotion , in many cases that isn't true. Why? Because your emotions are in strong correlation with your needs, ration can help you aquire and understand concepts but it can't dismiss your needs.

It is true that religion provides things like comfort and many won't give up religion because of that comfort. But less and less young people are religious mostly because of the proliferation of education. The more knowledgeable one is, the less likely one needs a crutch like religion. Many of the young well educated realise that science contradicts much of what religions teach so they are less inclined to get involved. Yesterday I saw some footage on the news of a church and the vast majority of the poeple in the church were OLD. They had grey hair and looked like they did not have much longer to live. Once that generation is gone, religion will further weaken.

[notimportant1234]

99% of my country is religious , knowledge doesn't seem to affect this numbers. Maslow sayed that more intelligent people can concentrate on higher needs without completly fullfiling the lower , so you can say that people don't really get out of religion because they use ration but because lower needs don't affect them that much so they can easily dismiss religion or not.

Edit: Actually Maslow sayed that metamotivated people go beyond basic needs , I remembered it wrong , sorry.

[Bow Before Zeus]

What country are you from?

[notimportant1234]

Romania

[Bow Before Zeus]

Ah. Eastern Orthodox. Gotya. Greece has the same problem with Greek Orthodox. It pervades the whole society like a virus, poisoning everything. It is slowly changing but so very slowly. Even my father who is a staunch atheist selected Greek Orthodox in the last census. Why? Because he is Greek! That is the level of thinking. They cannot separate the religion from the culture.

[Nay_Sayer]

Charles Darwin's great work "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was the nail in the coffin for the Christian religion. In fact, the theory of Evolution was so feared by the church that it resulted in Atheists being jailed for blasphemy.What shocked me when I was studying this is that "In Scotland until the 18th century it was punishable by death, and in England it is both a statutory and a common-law offense." The church had so much power so late in human history that its religious laws resulted in imprisonment of people that did nothing more than tell the truth.

But the fact of Evolution survived the ignorant peasant thinkers of the time to become the accepted scientific explanation of the plethora of species existing on this planet. So why the controversy with the church? The church knew that it would spell its death if this scientific fact was made known. Evolution meant that man was not created by an all-powerful creator around 6,000 years ago but rather evolved from single-cell organisms over a period of billions of years. Whilst there is an obvious and more than slight discrepancy between 6,000 years and billions of years, the challenge was not one of age but one of "ethics".

Christianity states that god created Adam and Even in the garden of Eden some 6,000 years ago with one rule only. Do not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Of course they broke that solitary "ethical" rule (I'm looking at you Eve) and the result was suffering and pain for all the generations to come. The concept of original sin was born. With the concept of original sin can the concept of absolution and forgiveness of sins so the xtian creator-god being sent his only-begotten son to earth as a sacrifice to absolve the sins of those that believe in him.

Wow, stirring stuff. Pity that Darwin proved that there was no Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden, therefore there was no original sin and consequently, no need for a saviour. JC disappears in an intellectual puff of smoke.

So whilst science cannot disprove the existence of a mythical creator-god entity (so all the god-based religions are still safe, eg Islam, Judaism, Hinduism) it can and it has proven that there is no original sin and therefore Christianity is based on a myth.

And whilst scientific proof is not going to be enough to turn the "true believer" away from their xtian mythology, at least atheists can rest easy that the proof is there and there is no fear of being judged after death (by a xtian god anyway).

  First of all the Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were created 6000 years ago, that is an assumption of man. Secondly you need to show your claimed proof that the theory of evolution has now been proven and that it has proven there was no Adam and Eve. Show me were science has proven there is no original sin, I've never seen that in any reliable scientific texts. Lastly you better fear the judgement because it's coming your way if you do not change, and it will be you who decides your eternal destination, it will be God who grants you your decision. 

GC

It's like watching two gorillas throw feces at each other in the zoo.   

RAmen

[SteveII]

Charles Darwin's great work "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was the nail in the coffin for the Christian religion. In fact, the theory of Evolution was so feared by the church that it resulted in Atheists being jailed for blasphemy.What shocked me when I was studying this is that "In Scotland until the 18th century it was punishable by death, and in England it is both a statutory and a common-law offense." The church had so much power so late in human history that its religious laws resulted in imprisonment of people that did nothing more than tell the truth.

But the fact of Evolution survived the ignorant peasant thinkers of the time to become the accepted scientific explanation of the plethora of species existing on this planet. So why the controversy with the church? The church knew that it would spell its death if this scientific fact was made known. Evolution meant that man was not created by an all-powerful creator around 6,000 years ago but rather evolved from single-cell organisms over a period of billions of years. Whilst there is an obvious and more than slight discrepancy between 6,000 years and billions of years, the challenge was not one of age but one of "ethics".

Christianity states that god created Adam and Even in the garden of Eden some 6,000 years ago with one rule only. Do not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Of course they broke that solitary "ethical" rule (I'm looking at you Eve) and the result was suffering and pain for all the generations to come. The concept of original sin was born. With the concept of original sin can the concept of absolution and forgiveness of sins so the xtian creator-god being sent his only-begotten son to earth as a sacrifice to absolve the sins of those that believe in him.

Wow, stirring stuff. Pity that Darwin proved that there was no Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden, therefore there was no original sin and consequently, no need for a saviour. JC disappears in an intellectual puff of smoke.

So whilst science cannot disprove the existence of a mythical creator-god entity (so all the god-based religions are still safe, eg Islam, Judaism, Hinduism) it can and it has proven that there is no original sin and therefore Christianity is based on a myth.

And whilst scientific proof is not going to be enough to turn the "true believer" away from their xtian mythology, at least atheists can rest easy that the proof is there and there is no fear of being judged after death (by a xtian god anyway).

You do love to use thread titles that are then not supported in any way by your post.

1. Does the evidence suggest Christianity "is dead". An emphatic no. There are more Christians (both as a % and in real numbers) than there ever were in the history of the world. Even funnier is that atheism is declining and expected to continue to decline. These are the facts 150 years (6 generations) AFTER Darwin. Kind of throws your whole premise out the window. 
2. Has science disproved Adam and Eve? Again, no. But here's the thing: I don't even have to argue that point because you wrongly assume that Christianity hinges on the Doctrine of Original Sin. Christianity hinges on everyone sinning (a fact that cannot be disputed). In fact, the doctrine of original sin has a wide variety of positions to choose from:

Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

So, your argument can be more properly rephrases as:

If a prospective Christian decides that he must be a Bible literalist (as to Genesis 1-3) or nothing AND he happens to study the Doctrine of Original Sin and finds John Calvin's position the most convincing AND he thinks that science has disproven any Adam and Eve AND there are no other reasons Christianity appeals to him, THEN he will not become a Christian and THEREFORE Christianity "is dead". 

Good argument! No wonder atheism is growing...oh wait...

[Rhondazvous]

Trying to destroy Christianity with science is like trying to hit a home run with a golf club. Wrong game, Wrong tool.

Well, that's incorrect actually. Your statement is true for the other theistic religions but not for xtianity. This particular religion has a specific Achilles heel which can be disproven by science. All science has to do is show there is no such thing as Adam and Eve and xtianity is disproven.

Christianity uses two very powerful emotions, fear and guilt.  Coming at these emotions with logic is like trying to see the moon through a microscope.

Besides, there're too many people making too much money. Until the government finds another opium for the masses, Christianity isn't going anywhere.

The emotion, the money and the power are why xtianity continues and the deluded will remain deluded because of these reasons. No amount of logic will sway them. It doesn't mean that the logic should not be expounded. It should be laid out for all to see and understand even if it does not dissuade them from their mythology.

Otherwise we may as well teach creationism, Adam, Eve and the garden of Eden in the science class!!!  

I agree with what you're saying. Where we're not on the same page is how you define "dead." I'm thinking of the Church being dead or destroyed as an institution. Which isn't likely to happen any time soon.

It's not science's job to disprove Adam and Eve. Even before Christ, during the time of Aristotle people knew the earth is round. Church fathers like St. Augustine saw the difficulty of making people believe a book that says the earth is flat when it was general knowledge that it's round. So they plunged all Europe into an age of darkness, ignorance, fear and superstition that lasted hundreds of years.

Logic won't dispel willful ignorance. What we need to do is not to disprove Adam and Eve, but create a society where people don't live in fear. On second thought, disproving creationism is probably the road of least resistance.

[SteveII]

It is true that religion provides things like comfort and many won't give up religion because of that comfort. But less and less young people are religious mostly because of the proliferation of education. The more knowledgeable one is, the less likely one needs a crutch like religion. Many of the young well educated realise that science contradicts much of what religions teach so they are less inclined to get involved. Yesterday I saw some footage on the news of a church and the vast majority of the poeple in the church were OLD. They had grey hair and looked like they did not have much longer to live. Once that generation is gone, religion will further weaken.

There are more and more religious people in the world every hour that passes. You are not getting your message out--you can't even keep up with the population growth!

---

Please state how science disproves that "Adam and Eve are metaphors( i.e not to be taken literally) for our creation"  

Everything in the bible starts as being literal. It was written that way. As science closes the gaps of knowledge, the god of the gaps gets smaller and smaller and "theologians" have to continually "reinterpret" their texts to still be relevant. So, only the core of "real xtians" will still interpret the bible literally as its writers intended.

George Orwell has shown that anything can be relabeled and reinterpreted. So war becomes peace and love becomes hate. After all, Ronald Ray-gun did name a nuclear weapon, the most destructive war of mass destruction the "Peacemaker"!!! So you can call Adam and Eve "Bill and Bob the flowerpot men" but your contortions will not get you out of the fact that xtianity has been proven to be a mythology.

You're really ignorant of that which you rail against. Augustine in the fourth century did not believe in a literal 6-day creation. Creationism is a relatively new side issue for Christians.  So, how does that fit into your premise? You have constructed a straw man and are beating it up. Congrats on that achievement.

[Drich]

Charles Darwin's great work "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" was the nail in the coffin for the Christian religion. In fact, the theory of Evolution was so feared by the church that it resulted in Atheists being jailed for blasphemy.What shocked me when I was studying this is that "In Scotland until the 18th century it was punishable by death, and in England it is both a statutory and a common-law offense." The church had so much power so late in human history that its religious laws resulted in imprisonment of people that did nothing more than tell the truth.

But the fact of Evolution survived the ignorant peasant thinkers of the time to become the accepted scientific explanation of the plethora of species existing on this planet. So why the controversy with the church? The church knew that it would spell its death if this scientific fact was made known. Evolution meant that man was not created by an all-powerful creator around 6,000 years ago but rather evolved from single-cell organisms over a period of billions of years. Whilst there is an obvious and more than slight discrepancy between 6,000 years and billions of years, the challenge was not one of age but one of "ethics".

Christianity states that god created Adam and Even in the garden of Eden some 6,000 years ago with one rule only. Do not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Of course they broke that solitary "ethical" rule (I'm looking at you Eve) and the result was suffering and pain for all the generations to come. The concept of original sin was born. With the concept of original sin can the concept of absolution and forgiveness of sins so the xtian creator-god being sent his only-begotten son to earth as a sacrifice to absolve the sins of those that believe in him.

Wow, stirring stuff. Pity that Darwin proved that there was no Adam and Eve in a garden of Eden, therefore there was no original sin and consequently, no need for a saviour. JC disappears in an intellectual puff of smoke.

So whilst science cannot disprove the existence of a mythical creator-god entity (so all the god-based religions are still safe, eg Islam, Judaism, Hinduism) it can and it has proven that there is no original sin and therefore Christianity is based on a myth.

And whilst scientific proof is not going to be enough to turn the "true believer" away from their xtian mythology, at least atheists can rest easy that the proof is there and there is no fear of being judged after death (by a xtian god anyway).

oh, noes what will the church do!?!?!
wait a tick....

The bible never puts a time line on the end of creation and the fall.. And the orginal did not have the book chapter and verse denotations...

What does this all mean?

There is no time line between the 7th day of creation and the fall of man in the garden.

The lack of bcv in the orginal text also means that chapter two (all except for day 7) was a story on God creating the garden on day 3/4 apart from everything else. meaning the garden had it's own time line.

Still with me sport?


That means time in the garden could have very well been all the time needed for the rest of the world outside the garden to "catch up" to the model of life God made in the Garden. So when man/Adam fell from grace and was kicked out He/Adam and their kids would be compatible with the world around them.

This would also answer a great number of supposed "contradictions" like: where did the city of nod come from that cane fled to after killing able, who did adam's off spring marry and have children with?

Answer: "evolved man" outside the garden.

If you read Genesis 1 and two in Chapter one man is made in the image/appearence of God, in chapter two God breathed a living soul into Adam. So man in the garden has a soul and their descendants, and man outside the garden is like man inside just no eternal soul.

So end of church averted with a simple non traditional reading. A reading that takes absolutely nothing away from a 7 day creation and adds nothing to the science brand or the religious brand of orgins... It does however demand you let go tradition and simply read what is on page without adding science bs or religious bs to the mix.