Christianity-bashing?

Honestly ill throw it out there that i don't believe in god but i would never "bash it" in any way. everyone has their opinion on evolution or whatever else and no one can say one is right and one is wrong because there is no proof. as well as with religion, all religions that is. Theres minimal or no proof of most religions but as humans we need that belief and faith in something else whatever our own may be.

The chances of you being a scientist and religious are much less than any other profession. Period.

Science doesn't contradict itself. Depending on how the study is done, there are different variables to consider, and frankly, some studies are just plain biased. Not all studies are created equal, and you shouldn't immediately believe any one study you read. One thing about science is that in order to be accepted, it has to be proven time and time again. If it's not, well, they don't accept it. Science is looking for the truth, remember. It is perfectly willing to change as our techniques get more precise.

Criticism of Christianity likely comes because Christianity is a religion that seeks converts, continuously. Christians as a whole are constantly trying to prove others' religions wrong, or trying to force their beliefs onto others (through legislation, for example). The Jews have the same moral base as the Christians, but most tend to be perfectly content with keeping to themselves. Hindus, in my experience, are the same way... they practice their religion for themselves, and don't seek to change other people's views.

~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!

the only reason there is religion is because it creates the false being of hope. if there is hope in someones life because of religion, they think that "oh, (insert religious being here) cant make this any more worse than it already is" and if it doesnt, they praise that being and go on with there happy day. its just a false sense of security, thas all religion is, one big effing security blanket.

Christianity gets bashed most often because it is more present among the bloggers here. If Islam or whatever were the main religion then that religion would get "bashed." Christianity and Islam are also some of the pushiest religions about conversions and are both deeply active in politics. Jews may be anti-gay too, but I don't see too many Jews out their picketing gay funerals or urging temple members to vote against gay marriage. Nor have too many Jewish leaders come out to declare hurricanes or 9/11 or whatever as evidence of God's wrath. Last I checked the Dalai Lama wasn't walking around with a picture of an aborted fetus around his neck or bombing abortion clinics.

Science is not a religion, it is a process, and the answers it gives us are not absolute. They are the best theories currently available to us. Because there is disagreement within the scientific community does not make science bunk. Besides, that sword cuts both ways. In your own post you claim that some people who call themselves Christians are not only wrong, but not Christians at all. So if absolute agreement is the standard by which truth is to be measured Christianity is no better off than the "science" you seem to be so dismissive of.

Religious people want to view science as a religion because that is the systemization of belief that they are comfortable and familiar with. They want scientific beliefs to be religious beliefs because that's what they understand. That isn't the way science works. It is a community of many different people, of many different faiths studying and testing reality. They debate among themselves and as general agreement is reached the view becomes popular and wide spread, but almost every scientist worth the name would change his view any particular subject if presented with good evidence and good arguments.

Also, don't forget that by the time any particular scientific belief becomes part of popular canon it has been challenged, expanded or even flat out changed. The last sub atomic particles I really heard about were quarks, but they are way beyond that nowadays.

Evolution may be true or false. Man may have started in multiple areas at once, or only one. None of that actually helps the case of God. A lot of these arguments get bogged down in binary thinking. Evolution v. Intelligent design or whatever. This is incredibly useful for comparing those two ideas, but not really for determining how life began. There may be something entirely different going on. If you want to argue about whether God exists then you must argue that on its own. The existence of life might be a part of that argument, but disproving evolution doesn't prove God, it disproves evolution.

Evolution can also co-exist with theistic beliefs. Many Christians believe in evolution. Many believe that God created humans specially, but left the rest up to evolution.

Finally, validating the historical events of the old testament does not validate the "supernatural" or "miraculous" events of the old testament. Most people who say things like, "There's plenty of scientific proof of God," would be pretty hard pressed to actually produce it. It's a built up idea in their mind that just doesn't get examined, so when you ask them, "like what?" they pull out a couple old standbys that any thinking atheist has heard and discounted and proceed to mumble something and walk away when people aren't immediately swayed to their point of view.

As long as their are large groups of people calling themselves Christians doing things that I disagree with for reasons that I find stupid I will say. I will say so loudly. I do the same thing with any group that commonly holds beliefs with which I disagree, and I have about the same reaction when they tell me that the media has twisted what their organization is about or that those guys aren't really part of our group, "they just use the name."

Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."

Is it just because we're more vocal about our beliefs?

Pretty much, yeah.

Sorry, but I have to say this: there is plenty of scientific evidence that points to God.

Really? Like what?

Many top scientists don't believe in macroevolution

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "many," but I would suggest that you are significantly eaggerating the number of scientists that reject the notion of macroevolution. In fact, macroevolution (which when correctly defined is nothing more than "any evolutionary change at or above the level of species") has been directly observed and thoroughly documented. Those who reject the notion are either uniformed regarding the contents of the scientific literature, or resistant to the idea on non-scientific grounds.

There is plenty of archaeological evidence that verifies the Old Testament.

There may be "plenty of archaeological evidence" that confirms certian aspects of many of the stories contained in the Old Testament, but none of that evidence supports the idea that the supernatural claims of the biblical stories actually happened.

percivale

-------------------------

Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.