Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                If you keep up with science you will know that what was accepted today is gone tomorrow.

Always good to hear the one about Science being bad (because of some harmful technology) and wrong (because theories have sometimes been superseded) argued over the Internet on an iPad, by someone with access to medical care and flush toilets. How you must miss the Dark Ages.

Dr, Sheldon,
You miss the whole point.

Mankind has brought all his problems through thinking he knows best.

Scientist would be [and are in my opinion] of no consequence if mankind was not so devious and selfish among other things.

You do not know how people actually lived throughout the lifetime of mankind nor to what extent they were educated, so to talk about the Dark Ages and not see the possibility that there were previous times when mankind was not as ignorant as you make out is childish.

It was called the dark ages for a reason, are you seriously claiming people were better educated during the dark ages? Another 'wow!' moment from you there.  It appears your ignorance of history mirrors your ignorance of science, philosophy, and logic. What point are you claiming I've missed? It's tedious and idiotic to keep claiming this then not say what you think I've missed, but just repeat your absurd and un-evidenced claims.

You claim I don't know how people lived or were educated, then proceed to imply you do.

Dr, Sheldon,
There are numerous accounts in the written word throughout the world that used more complicated means of writing than we at present use.

There are the remains of buildings that indicate that they were capable and in some cases more capable than we are today.

Throughout history there have been dark ages brought about by different situations as the present state of our earth clearly indicates that we are well on the way to another.

Anyone who feels that mankind has in fact improved matters for all mankind is living in Dream Land.

People are stranded because they are afraid to travel by air others risking death to travel by unsafe sea vessels, including small children along with the very great prospect of nuclear war not being far away etc;

As I have stated, there is ample historical evidence that people of long ago were anything but ignorant peasants.

Yes I'm sure you're right, and the dark ages were anabsolute delight, good-grief-poly. You're making a fool of yourself I'm afraid. Do you think those superior buildings were built without science and maths? Dear oh dear.

Polyglide wrote:People are stranded because they are afraid to travel by air others risking death to travel by unsafe sea vessels, including small children.

 They're fleeing religious persecution. T'was ever thus.

Polyglide wrote:
As I have stated, there is ample historical evidence that people of long ago were anything but ignorant peasants. 

Care to show some?

Dr, Sheldon,
I am well aware you need educating in some form or other but I have no intention of doing it for you other than to say look up ancient Egypt.

So yet again your bluster about evidence provides nought. Quelle surprise. ....likewise I'm sure no one will be suprise when I ask you to show a post of mine claim ancient Egyptians were all ignorant, and you can't as this is another dishonest straw man polemic from you.

Dr, Sheldon,
Are you actually aware of what you write?.

You asked me to prove that previous generations were not ignorant, I never said that you mentioned Eygpt, I said look up their history for proof and only one of many ancient civilisations.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Are you actually aware of what you write?. You asked me to prove that previous generations were not ignorant, I never said that you mentioned Eygpt, I said look up their history for proof and only one of many ancient civilisations.

Actually I asked you "It was called the dark ages for a reason, are you seriously claiming people were better educated during the dark ages?" Perhaps you think the Pyramids were built in the dark ages? You raised the example of Egyptian society, perhaps you can explain why if I never mentioned them or denied that their society was very advanced by other contemporary societies of that epoch? How does any of this relate to showing a valid reason for religious dogma and doctrine challenging scientific empiricism? Are you suggesting the Egyptians were so far advanced because of their polytheistic religious beliefs, and not because of their advanced mathematics and engineering? If so I suggest you take your own advice and study ancient Egypt yourself.

Polyglide wrote: by polyglide Today at 3:04 pm
Dr, Sheldon,
You miss the whole point.

Again, what point, you keep making this absurdly tedious and repetitive claim, but never say what point is missed, even after you're asked repeatedly?

Polyglide wrote: As I have stated, there is ample historical evidence that people of long ago were anything but ignorant peasants.

So far you've managed to cite the ancient Egyptians, ironic really as their society was advanced through science, mathematics and engineering, and of course I never suggested all ancient societies were entirely ignorant, and as you now admit I never mentioned Egypt at all.

Dr, Sheldon,
My post regarding Eygpt was in answer to your request to Show Some, regarding the intelligence of past ages, I took it for granted you would realise there are other such nations.

What evidence have you that the population during this epoch were educated at all, let alone anywhere near contemporary scientific knowledge? The mass of the population would have had no access to any sort of education. What has ancient Egypt to do with the bible being the product of an epoch that was extremely ignorant and superstitious by contemporary standards?

Are you claiming ancient Egypt's knowledge of mathematics and engineering was attributable to their polytheistic religious beliefs? Based on what evidence? 

How does any of these claims validate religious dogma and doctrine trying to challenge scientific empirically tested facts?

Dr, Sheldon,
I made no such claim what I said was that the ancient civilisations were not as stupid as you apparently think.

I go along with Sterberg and Grigorenko on this matter.

What claim are you denying making? You'll have to give me a clue. I've no idea who the names you mention are, or their relevance, or what it is you're claim to go along with. 

Again in what way does any of this validate religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism?

This an interesting collection of creationist clichés and theistic claims debunked quite comprehensively.



It's a sad indictment of the American education system to be sure, but also a stark warning of the damage to critical thinking and education in general that blind adherence to religious dogma produces.

Dr, Sheldon,
I take a slightly diffrent approach to this question than yourself.

It realy boils down to wether you feel there is a power beyond our comprehension or wether there is ultimately a natural explanation for all things.

Having considered everything regarding evolution [and as I have attempted to explain previously, I do believe in evolution of things that have already been created] I believe intelligence far beyond our understanding is involved in the creation of all things.

The source of that intelligence must have an existance in one form or another and after considering, over a lifetime, all that is invloved and all the alternatives I have come across my belief is in the Bibles interpretation of creation.

I am well aware that one can look at the content of the Bible and see many things that appear not in accordance with our present way of thinking but that is because we are in the now and the Bibles content is in the past over a very prolonged period.

As a firm believer in God I have given up attempting to make sense of some of the Bibles content and base my belief in Jesus and the actual experiences I have had when in doubt.

Polyglide, if you are discussing medical science then what was practiced and believed 400 years ago is indeed not practiced exactly the same today.

However, gangrene used to be treated with maggots eating the dead flesh and bacteria in a patient and sometimes this method is still used today. Leeches were used to 'bleed' people and that method still has medical uses today.

So what scientific knowledge has been refuted outright? I'd like to know please.

snowyflaake,
I have never said that science has not been good in mending many things that man has created in the first place, nor enhanced our understanding of many things including a very small percentage of the uiniverse etc;

I am always refering to science in general and in particular to the branch that created the nuclear bomb and the means of chemical warfare both possible means of killing all mankind with limited effort.

Yeah you are a negativist in your beliefs. Again, you focus on the negative aspects which are few compared to all of the good that science has discovered and continues to enhance our knowledge of the universe, the planet, ourselves. Yet you will harp on about how 'bad' science is.

All this negativity is not good for your mental health. You need to get out more and stop thinking that the world is a bad place. It isn't.

snowyflake,
I get out a lot and amongst the right thinking people.

So you think that science creating the means of mass destruction is of no consequence.

Also just what benifit is it knowing that Mars has anything or a commet is made from ice cream etc; I am well aware what will happen if some idiot drops a few nuclear bombs and I do not need any scientist or anyone else to tell me.

Just because you are not interested or cannot understand the impact of scientific knowledge doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing.

Science is the key to fixing our planet and our earthly problems. Religion hasn't, doesn't and won't solve anything. It never has.

polyglide wrote: It realy boils down to wether you feel there is a power beyond our comprehension or wether there is ultimately a natural explanation for all things. 

No it REALLY doesn't, and there are two l's in really ffs how many times. However I freely admit that I can't approach any question by assuming anything exists that I can't even comprehend, just how would you even start to evidence such a ridiculous claim, why would any intelligent person even make it come to that? We already know that every single thing we have explanations for have a natural explanation, including every single thing our ancestors in their ignorance assigned supernatural causation to. Not once, ever, has a claim for anything supernatural held up to proper scrutiny.  

The idiotic puerile nonsense you have regurgitated about evolution repeatedly is creationist claptrap, I have zero interest in that mumbo jumbo nonsense. Science has evidenced the theory of evolution as much as any scientific theory ever, whereas you have shown that you are scientifically illiterate, you don't even understand the most basic definitions of science. You have repeatedly misinterpreted the word theory as used in a scientific context, you think methods and criteria like peer review and falsifiability can be ignored and cite creationist pseudo-science as scientific evidence when it isn't falsifiable and hasn't been peer reviewed. Then hilariously claimed this was just an obsession of mine, of course you are entirely unaware of the consequences of that imbecilic claim. You simply roll on and on repeating the same creationist clichés, and either won't or can't learn the most basic requirements of the scientific process, but hilariously claim to be scientifically knowledgeable, it's pitiful stuff I'm afraid.  

Polyglide wrote:The source of that intelligence must have an existance in one form or another and after considering, over a lifetime, all that is invloved and all the alternatives I have come across my belief is in the Bibles interpretation of creation.

Same tired old spurious first cause polemic, you simply are not able to grasp the many and varied refutations of it, so I shan't bother posting any here again, they litter these threads if you ever develop any honest interest in objective debate, I shan't hold my breath. Biblical creation is axiomatically errant, it doesn't even manage to get the chronological order of the formation of our solar system right, and the best you claim an omniscient being can manage to explain a 14+ billion year old universe is 6 days, hilariously claiming, without any evidence of course, that an omniscient being uses a different time-scale, as if omniscience couldn't be clearer or more accurate than representing 365 multiplied by 14 billion as f*****g 6. Do behave...

Polyglide wrote: I am well aware that one can look at the content of the Bible and see many things that appear not in accordance with our present way of thinking but that is because we are in the now and the Bibles content is in the past over a very prolonged period.

Absolutely true, but this again astonishingly doesn't spark even a glimmer of self awareness in you as to what this means. Omniscience by definition could not make mistakes, superstitious bronze age humans however can and quite clearly did, if only there was a simple explanation, Occam's razor slash - ho hum. Pleas join the dots man.....

Polyglide wrote:As a firm believer in God I have given up attempting to  make sense of some of the Bibles content and base my belief in Jesus and the actual experiences I have had when in doubt.

   
Just as Muslims do, or Sikhs, or Jews. or Hindus, or those who worshipped Apollo or Zeus, or lunatics in asylums who reject all evidence in favour of their own unshakable faith and belief that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Just why you think this represents compelling polemic I really don't know. What it does not represent, what it axiomatically doesn't show, is a valid reason to challenge scientific empiricism, which was the question of this thread. I didn't premise the question to hear you repeat ad nausea what-you-believe, as this has no relevance to the thread question.

polyglide wrote:So you think that science creating the means of mass destruction is of no consequence.

A very dishonest misrepresentation of what snowflake said, you really are the most prolifically dishonest person I've encountered for some time, or you're illiterate of course, perhaps a little of both?

Polyglide wrote:Also just what benifit is it knowing that Mars has anything or a commet is made from ice cream etc;

Illiterate it is.  Then again that shockingly dishonest attempt to limit the entire sum of scientific knowledge to two things tends to imply rank dishonesty again, I really can't decide again now.

Polyglide wrote:I am well aware what will happen if some idiot drops a few nuclear bombs and I do not need any scientist or anyone else to tell me.

Well of course the decision to drop the only two ever used in anger was made by a Christian, the son of a baptists minister. The lead scientist on the Manhattan project by comparison pleaded with him not to do it, and was persecuted for years afterwards. Though why the prospect of nuclear war causes so much fake angst from someone who has stated blithely many times on here that world is going to be destroyed in a cataclysmic and apocalyptic fulfilment of a biblical prophesy, is a little hard to fathom, but then most of your posts are loony tune inconsistent mumbo jumbo.

Dr, Sheldon,
I would let snowyflake answer for herself although I disagree with her on every point she at least is almost understandable.

God will be the ultimate determinator what he will use is up to God.

I have let Snowyflake answer for herself. Your lie is just another attempt to avoid addressing my post.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have always thought you a "little" odd and you have constantly confirmed my opinion.

You cannot grasp the fact that most of the things scientists are chasing are shadows and have no real relevance to the life of humans.

Just tell me one thing that scientists are presently doing in the space programme that is of any benifit to mankind or the ongoing means of destruction as leaked regarding Russian experiments and no doubt all other countries are doing the same, more scientists are engaged on destruction than anything else.

Your childlike antipathy toward and complete ignorance of science doesn't make me odd. Not that I give a flying f**k whether you think I'm odd or not. In fact I can think of no better compliment than 'YOU' thinking me odd. Your inability to grasp that ad hominem insults are not compelling polemic litter these threads, and they are not limited to me. 


Your inability to grasp the thread topic is tiresome.  As is your constant use of straw man polemic like this latest that idiotically tries to limit science to just two things you personally have decided are of no use to humanity. Science has eradicated diseases, created cures for countless others, saves millions of lives with medicines and medical treatments,  alleviated untold suffering with treatments and medicines too innumerable to list. Feeds billions with by industrialising agriculture and creating pest resistent hardier strains. Every single aspect of our lives is improved by the knowledge s once has provided. 


Yet this isn't even the point. The point is on what basis does mumbo jumbo superstition from the bronze age challenge the demonstrable success of empirical science to objectively validate evidence?

Dr, Sheldon,
There are millions of people worldwide dying every minute from curable disease, on a daily basis charities point out that a child dies every minute of every day needlessly.

Of course some diseases have been cured and at the same time others have been created by abuse of the things mankind was given for a specific purpose and been perverted.

Overall science is incapable of solving mans problems some yes, all no, the most no, the few yes.

The reply to the actual question is of course yes as all things that are not confirmable are challengable.

Science has a place and if used correctly can be of benifit but as usual mankind perverts almost everything at his disposal.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                There are millions of people worldwide dying every minute from curable disease, on a daily basis charities point out that a child dies every minute of every day needlessly.

Whilst according to you an omnibenevolent deity with limitless power sits idly by. Though what this has to do with thread question I don't know.

Polyglide wrote:Of course some diseases have been cured and at the same time others have been created by abuse of the things mankind was given for a specific purpose and been perverted.

Some cured and others eradicated totally, and more is being learned all the time thanks to science. That last sentence is pure subjective conjecture. The largest killer is Malaria, and science is on the brink of finding a cure for this as well. Though again I have no idea what this has to do with the thread question?

Polyglide wrote:Overall science is incapable of solving mans problems some yes, all no, the most no, the few yes.

What utter drivel, care to even try and evidence your claim? Just how do you personally claim to know what science and may not teach us in the future? That's absurd hyperbole.                

Polyglide wrote: The reply to the actual question is of course yes as all things that are not confirmable are challengable.

 

The question was "Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?" So simply claiming yes is rather silly when you offer no evidence at all beyond puerile and subjective rants to derogate science based on no real facts. I don't even know what the last part of the sentence means, but I'd love to know how you confirm unprovable religious claims for supernatural causation that are not even falsifiable. You still don't seem able to grasp the most basic scientific concepts, such as the process not be a linear progression for pure conjecture to absolute fact, that's not how science works as I have explained many times, and you could easily confirm by following any number of links I've offered, or even learning about basic scientific methodology yourself. Just because something is tentative and open to revision if new evidence requires, doesn't make it any less correct. The theory of gravity is no less correct for being tentative and open to revision, and as I have explained relentlessly any method that never admits a mistake is useless for gathering knowledge, which is why religion has taught us nothing in thousands of years.        

Dr, Sheldon,
If you cannot confirm a point it is challangable because you cannot prove it.

Many things accepted by scientists in the past have proven groundless through time, the world is flat, the universe is standing still, [ few miles an hour out there] etc;

So in fact you are saying that science puts forward ideas on the basis that they may or may not be right and open to future consideration and then you ask is science challengable.

Christians do not change their minds on a regular basis if they are in fact true Christians they are steadfast in their belief.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                If you cannot confirm a point it is challangable because you cannot prove it.

Good to know, I challenge the un-evidenced and unprovable claim that anything supernatural exists, and yes, that includes your bronze age deity. Own goal, ahem

Polyglide wrote:Many things accepted by scientists in the past have proven groundless through time,

No they haven't Hicthen's razor slash.

Polyglide wrote: the world is flat, the universe is standing still, [ few miles an hour out there] etc;

The first was never claimed by science, it was by religion, in fact by the one that founded your own sect, another own goal champ. Are you saying you agree with science's revision of that second claim? Based on what? Ah, on scientific evidence, well well another own goal. The best your infallible deity could manage is a 6 day estimate of a process that took 14 billion years, I'll take science thanks....so will you oddly enough, unless you're sending this post via the medium of prayer or faith, and not using electricity, a computer and the internet? Another own goal, ho hum...

So in fact you are saying that science puts forward ideas on the basis that they may or may not be right and open to future consideration

No, I have never said that, you're a pathological liar.

Polyglide wrote: and then you ask is science challengable.

Nope, I have never asked this, so that's nil from two, better if you learned to read, and tried to grasp the most basic scientific methodology, then your posts would not look so stupidly dishonest.

Polyglide wrote:Christians do not change their minds on a regular basis if they are in fact true Christians they are steadfast in their belief.

Indeed, remind us all how long they carried on torturing and burning people in the *true* belief they were witches? How long did the church incarcerate Galileo for proving them wrong about us living in a geocentric universe? Another truth they were *steadfast in, it didn't of course make it any less spurious. How many years did Christians use the bible to justify slavery? Some of the more stupid bigoted Christians still use homophobic bigotry of course, though they are an ever decreasing minority, but still amply prove your point here.  

So it was religion that claimed the world is flat, and the Christian church that we all lived in a geocentric universe, but science that proved both wrong. Nice try champ but blatant lies are not compelling polemic. I tire of trying to relieve your delusion that scientific facts are not a linear progression from pure subjective hypothesis to absolute truth. Nor is it usually a choice between two mutually exclusive premises. These idiocies show an astonishing ignorance of science and its methods, and a baffling desire to continue revelling in the ignorance that religion has promoted over science for centuries, and which you still champion here.

Repeatedly parading your scientific illiteracy doesn't of course validate your blind faith in bronze age dogma and superstition either. Sad that you think derogating science is the way to validate your beliefs, because you have nothing credible to offer in support of them, but even sadder that you endlessly repeat these erroneous clichés knowing they're not true.

I simply won't accept you speaking for anyone else, let alone most Christians, many of whom are no doubt decent tolerant people, especially not after your prejudiced bigoted homophobic behaviour on here. However if after multiple explanations you can't see that gaining knowledge is impossible using any system that refuses to accept it is ever in error, or thinks it is 100% certain as you claim to be,  then I'm happy for that to speak for itself. Endless repetition of such asinine claims won't make them less idiotic, in fact the opposite is far more likely.

You ignored this question, as you always do:

Polyglide wrote:
Overall science is incapable of solving mans problems some yes, all no, the most no, the few yes.
What utter drivel, care to even try and evidence your claim? Just how do you personally claim to know what science may, and may not, teach us in the future? That's absurd hyperbole.    

Pretty soon I'll start ignoring your endless drivel and just cut and paste all the requests for evidence you ignore after you roll out claim after claim based on nothing more than the voices in your head.

Even though this has been covered again and again, I feel it is worth one more try. First let's dispel some erroneous claims that polyglide keeps making. 

1. Scientific facts are never proven, they are evidenced. This does not mean the facts are less compelling,  since absolute proof is unobtainable even in a philosophical sense. 
2. Any method for gathering knowledge that doesn't admit it's claims and evidence to continuous scrutiny and possible revision would be worthless,  as errors would simply be kept as true when evidence showed them to be false. Just as religion has done and some believers still do.
3. There is no linear progression from unknown to proven fact, this simply isn't how science works. Facts are facts because theories that explain them are overwhelmingly supported by all the evidence. 
4. Just because scientific facts are tentative does not mean they are premised guesses,  hunches,  or subjective conjecture. 

Imagine a scale starting at 0 and going off into infinity.  Zero would represent no credible evidence and therfore no safe claims for something. On this scale you could never reach an end goal of proved. Yet facts like evolution carry a weight of evidence more than any reasonable objective person could reasonably deny. It is as safe a theory given the evidence as the assertion of the rotundity of the earth. 

The likelihood of its complete reversal from here is so small as to be virtually nil.

I don't believe I can make this any clearer.

Dr, Sheldon,
I can understand your attitude towards science as opposed to religion, [Christianity as far as I am concerned because all others as the Bible says are false] however, neither you nor I or anyone else can prove that the events of the Bible did not occur and no one I am aware of can give a reasonable explanation of the creation of the universe [in my opinion a Work in Progress as I have stated previously]

I can understand anyone doubting some of the events etc; however, Reverlations indicates very clearly that the Bible contents are not in some cases to be taken literally.

In which case neither science nor religion can explain with evidence [undeniable] to prove creation, so of couse there is every reason to refute on both sides.

Science has as I have explained many times resulted in both good and bad for mankind.

Just as further consideration, if I am right regarding God then we have the chance of everlasting life in an ideal situation where all the present ills are no more, please tell me exactly where the world is heading based on science taking into consideration the present state it finds itself in.

                Science has as  I have explained many times  resulted in both good and bad for mankind.

polyglide:

Science does not advocate killing witches. But a "Good Book" that advocates killing is not a very good book.

It may well be that Science does find dimensions beyond our own; it may be that multiple universes are not mere science fiction. The future is bright with possibilities (and dark with religion). Christianity seems to offer endless chants of "Let God be praised" in an eternity of adoration. Of course few inherit this wonderland; the many are punished for ever and ever. Surely that single idea, that punishment is eternal, would stop you "loving" the brute who engineered the concept. Fortunately the god of torment is a man-made creation. Phew!
               

marcolucco,
Phew indeed.

I do not believe in eternal hell for anyone and the Bible tells us that all will be judged according to their actions.

I am aware that science has made vast advances in many areas that are of benifit to mankind but as I have pointed out several times it has also resulted in the possibility that some lunatic will push the button regarding nuclear anhiliation along with the many chemical agents that can be used in a similar manner.

I appreciate your opinion [rather understand] regarding the actions of God and the seemingly advocating killing along with other such matters, however, as I have explained previously God will only act when his people are threatened with unfair means.

The nuclear bombs on Japan being a prime example of how mankind acts in an identical manner when the circumstances warrant.

Science as far as I am aware advocates nothing it persues a course towards explaining a problem and attempting to solve it, in some cases for good and in other cases for potential evil.

It is difficult for one who believes in God to explain how one thinks because my religion is based on faith alone and to convey this to a none believer is difficult.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  I can understand your attitude towards science as opposed to religion,

My attitude? Not sure what you mean but I have stated my position plainly many times, science is a rigorous method for objectively gathering, studying, and then empirically testing evidence. It has innumerable successes in a very short time, far too many for an reasonable objective person to simply deny it's best evidenced facts like evolution, and these speak for themselves. Your post arrived over the internet, typed on a computer, all powered by electricity, all of which we have thanks to science. If you become ill, and have any sense at all, you seek medical attention, biology and chemistry, so again all thanks to science. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the heat that keeps you warm in winter, and on and on it goes, all science....

Polyglide wrote: [Christianity as far as I am concerned because all others as the Bible says are false] however, neither you nor I or anyone else can prove that the events of the Bible did not occur

Firstly how anyone can claim veracity for a book of bronze age myths because the book itself claims it is right and all others wrong is quite beyond farce. The next problem is your claim simply isn't true, and I am loathe to waste my time evidencing again and again how many erroneous claims there are in the bible when you simply ignore it all and just endlessly repeat those claims that are demonstrably false as you have done here again. Genesis is chock full of errors, even the most basic chronology of the formation of the universe and our solar system is hopelessly wrong. The rest of the bible fares little better, and some of it worse, such as the plagiarised flood myth, Noahm farcically erroneous in almost every basic detail.

Polyglide wrote:and no one I am aware of can give a reasonable explanation of the creation of the universe [in my opinion a Work in Progress as I have stated previously]

Yet again you use argumentum ad ignorantiam, not knowing something is just that, and nothing more, does this lack of explanation in your eyes justify any other creation myths? If not then why not? Though you start with an incorrect premise anyway, as scientists have evidence and working models that explain the formation of the universe, they are far from complete, but are still more plausible than bronze age superstition about supernatural magic, indeed what isn't.

Polyglide wrote: I can understand anyone doubting some of the events etc; however, Reverlations indicates very clearly that the Bible contents are not in some cases to be taken literally.

Revelations is gibberish, it isn't even correctly titled, as second hand accounts are by definition not revelation, and what it claims does not amount to anything like evidence, besides simply claiming that something that is rife with inaccuracies is wrong because because it can't be taken literally, whilst purportedly being from an omnipotent omniscient being, is absurdly silly and illogical. Why would such a being communicate in bronze age inaccuracies, it is simply too absurd to not see that Occam's razor applies here again.

Polyglide wrote:   In which case neither science nor religion can explain with evidence [undeniable] to prove creation, so of couse there is every reason to refute on both sides.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, what is that now 3 or 4 times so far in this post? The working models for the formation of the universe that science has may not be complete but they are absolutely based on evidence, that's how science works. Genesis not only has no evidence to support it, but is rife with known inaccuracies, as basic as getting the chronology of how the universe and our solar system was formed completely wrong, does that really sound like a message form a being with limitless knowledge and power to you?

Polyglide wrote:Science has as  I have explained many times  resulted in both good and bad for mankind.

So has cheese, what's your point?

Polyglide wrote:  Just as further consideration, if I am right regarding God then we have the chance of everlasting life in an ideal situation where all the present ills are no more,

Since none of it is any more evidenced than hades or the Aztec deities, your reasoning has you claiming one chance in tens if not hundreds of thousands of going "up, instead of down". Contemporary Catholic theologians who are in the best position to know, recently estimated the number of different Christian sects as over 40000, so you offering Pascal's wager as if it is the safer bet of a 50/50 premise is absurdly wrong. The safe bet given the human propensity for creating myths and deities that don't exist, and the fact that there is no evidence for any of them, is that they're all false. How many hours of your life have you spent critically and objectively examining that possibility? Not many judging from your posts. Do you think it sheer coincidence that you happen to have chosen the religion that predominates in the geographical location you were born or raised?  

Polyglide wrote: please tell me exactly where the world is heading based on science taking into consideration the present state it finds itself in.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're asking, I'm not a psychic, and can't tell the future. To be honest I have no idea what relevance that has to the thread. Our solar is calculated to be approximately half way through it's life span, and our sun will destroy our planet long before it dies. Humans are an infant species in evolutionary terms anyway, a mere 200000 years old at most. God preferred evolving dinosaurs it appears, and must have preferred crocodilians to humans as they are many magnitudes older, or cockroaches as they are far more likely to outlive us as a species.

               I do not believe in eternal hell for anyone .....

Neither do I, but a majority of Christians do. Perhaps the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" will be only momentary.

Science is neutral. The wheel has caused deaths. This comparison between the personified Science and God is a spurious one. God, to the believer, is an instructor; science is merely a tool, a means of advancing.

                            I appreciate your opinion [rather understand] regarding the actions of God
His plagues, involving the slaughter of innocent children - his tormenting of Job - his killing of kids who shouted baldy at a prophet ... not good, is it?

God will only act when his people are threatened with unfair means.................. I don't see this in practice though of course it is a useful theological suggestion. A little girl in the Ukraine, whose parents had just been murdered, ran upstairs and knelt down to pray. The murderer said he smashed her skull. What child, when asked for bread, is given a stone?

              The nuclear bombs on Japan being a prime example of how mankind acts in an identical manner when the circumstances warrant..... I don't see what point you are making here. No one is saying man is infinitely good and merciful. We expect a God to be.  And we don't expect a God to be hasty or petulant - though I admit these qualities are evident in the OT deity.
       

               It is difficult for one who believes in God to explain how one thinks because my religion is based on faith alone and to convey this to a non-believer is difficult..............         I appreciate your honesty in saying this but I believed whole-heartedly too; so I understand the basis for your opinions. There are problems in the position I hold, as well.

polyglide wrote:marcolucco, I appreciate your opinion [rather understand] regarding the actions of God and the seemingly advocating killing along with other such matters, however, as I have explained previously God will only act when his people are threatened with unfair means. The nuclear bombs on Japan being a prime example of how mankind acts in an identical manner when the circumstances warrant.

An odd comparison given you described those bombings as an unparalleled act of depravity, challenging me to show an act by mankind more depraved. You are tacitly accepting that some of the acts attributed to your deity in the bible are depraved. You never responded to my examples either, but that is par for the course.

polyglide wrote:Science as far as I am aware advocates nothing

Another odd claim, as you have repeatedly claimed science is culpable for how the knowledge its use grants us is used.

Polyglide wrote:it persues a course towards explaining a problem and attempting to solve it, in some cases for good and in other cases for potential evil.

No it doesn't, scientists do that. You seem to have difficulty understanding that science is a tool-kit, a method, and is therefore insentient, the direction it is taken in, and the way it's knowledge is used is determined by humans. Knowledge is neither good not bad, that is down to how it is used.

Polyglide wrote:It is difficult for one who believes in God to explain how one thinks because my religion is based on faith alone and to convey this to a none believer is difficult.

   
Especially difficult as you have repeatedly claimed to have factual empirical evidence to support your beliefs, when did this change to it being based entirely on faith?    

polyglide wrote:Science as far as I am aware advocates nothing

Another odd claim, as you have repeatedly claimed science is culpable for how the knowledge its use grants us is used.

Polyglide wrote:it persues a course towards explaining a problem and attempting to solve it, in some cases for good and in other cases for potential evil.

No it doesn't, scientists do that. You seem to have difficulty understanding that science is a tool-kit, a method, and is therefore insentient, the direction it is taken in, and the way it's knowledge is used is determined by humans. Knowledge is neither good not bad, that is down to how it is used. This next bit is important as I tire now of repeating myself and you ignoring it....

***Science and scientists are two entirely different things, and it's the latter and the latter alone that is culpable, because the former is an insentient process which simply can't make any decisions.****

Polyglide wrote:It is difficult for one who believes in God to explain how one thinks because my religion is based on faith alone and to convey this to a none believer is difficult.

Especially difficult as you have repeatedly claimed to have factual empirical evidence to support your beliefs, when did this change to it being based entirely on faith?