"
Without, I hope, sounding facetious, the fact that millions of people claim to have a relationship with God is evidence (though not proof) of God's existence.
In an era of rational scepticism, many people find this silly and even objectionable. But we currently live in a society which - like most western democracies - regards it as important that people be free to adopt and follow religious beliefs without persecution or ridicule for doing so. So even if we don't believe, the current rules of our society do require that we tolerate.
2. I doubt that there are millions of people who 'believe in aliens'; but if there were, this would indeed constitute evidence in favour of the existence of aliens. Not proof; just evidence (and not very persuasive evidence at that.) And this is a poor example to give by way of refuting my point anyway; many reputable scientist believe in aliens (not alien visitation, which I suspect is what was intended)- and point to the statistical probabilities as 'proof' .
indicating that a possible 150 million or so people living in America believe aliens have visited the Earth at some stage.
I think it’s an excellent point.I'm not so sure about this characterisation.
I think that’s a bit of a stretch.It's possibly even linked to 911 when radical Islam gave opponents of religion a weapon to attack all religion.
The tolerance of multiple faiths can only happen in a country that is secular in structure. Religion in general and Catholicism in particular, is fundamentally undemocratic (even though Islam has traditionally been very egalitarian within it’s male dominated confines).However, as quoted earlier, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market . And some have even suggested the recent atheistic hubbub is anxiety as the dreams for an age of secularism fade.
I don’t understand where you are going with this sort of emotive triumphalist rhetoric. This is not a battle or a war, it is a discussion, nothing more.One is struck by a strange sense of defensiveness about them. Desperation maybe? but certainly not victory.
Be interesting if the link between this and science could ever be explored. Copernican Principle, the idea that we do not have a special position in the universe might have been the first step.
This is not a battle or a war, it is a discussion, nothing more.
And yet after nearly 50 years of searching for intelligence in radio signals from space, the universe remains silent and the human race would seem not as insignificant as Stephen Hawkings et al would have us believe.
It's undoubtedly due to the harsh treatment I experienced from the 'Christian' Brothers in my young days
A huge proportion of scientific teaching over the years on the same topics has also been shown to be utterly wrong.
It is less than 100 years since most scientists were absolutely sure of the existence of the wholly imaginary luminiferous ether.
It is not much longer since our doctors learned that dirt in wounds causes infection.
It is less than 30 years since children were taken away from their parents on the strength of findings of abuse from scientists spouting the accepted theories of the day, now wholly discredited.
Indeed there are and further scientific research based on reason and empirical evidence has shown them to be false, incomplete or inaccurate. This is one of the great strengths of science. Religion on the other hand requires that it's version of events is never questioned.The same thing occured to me and I liked the examples. I think there are many other good ones though.
While you are correct that some of what he wrote has been shown to be incorrect the basic concept has been shown to be correct and the examination of his theories and the subsequent work that has been carried out by other scientists has given us a greater understanding of where we come from.There would also be a chapter related to that great bewhiskered dreamer - Charles Darwin. Not all the concepts of evolution have made it down to our time. Some of the notions have turned out to be, well, frankly, full of cr*p.
Tell me Remix, do you accept the Catholic Church's teachings on where we came from or do you accept that Darwin was closer to the mark?
However, as quoted earlier, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a bull market . And some have even suggested the recent atheistic hubbub is anxiety as the dreams for an age of secularism fade.
Even just looking at the titles/subtitles of these books -
God Delusion
God Poisons everything
God is not Great
etc.
One is struck by a strange sense of defensiveness about them. Desperation maybe? but certainly not victory.
I accept this is the case but it’s just a cop-out. My understanding is that the Catholic Church has never stated that the creation story in the book of Genesis is not correct. No priest I have ever talked to has ever seen it as other than a metaphor but I see this as another example of where the Church ignores its own past teachings when they have been shown to be conclusively untrue.But church teaching appears reasonable. At least if my understanding of what that teaching is is correct.
Belief in human evolution is permitted and no official position is imposed. I Agree with this.
God cannot be part of the equation in any scientific formula. This is not about any atheistic philosophy, it’s about offering something that cannot be quantified or understood (i.e. God) as the answer to a scientific question. The two are utterly incompatible.There are obvious difficulties with attempts to entangle atheistic philosophy in the matter.
So they appear not to have an issue with the science but issues with the atheism. And there should be no surprise in the latter
I am not bashing religion, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who use religion to plug the gaps in science but at the same time refuse to apply scientific analysis to religion.By the way, if your prime interest is simply religion bashing well that's one thing. But if do have questions in good faith then there are, of course,
better resources on the web then me where you can pose them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?