UK loses faith

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

a closed mind is a dying mind.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Again that statement tells me all I need to know.

You don't understand the term scientific theory.

What you have just said is that you will never be convinced about plate techtonics, general relativity or special relativity.

Hmmmmmm...........

Getting on a plane would post a bit of a problem as well. Given our understanding of gravity is 'just a theory'.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Pierre

You don't understand the term scientific theory.

Maybe, but I understand common sense.

[Pierre]

Well argued sir! That told me.

good job we can all rely on the absolute scientific principle of common sense.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by passingbat

Evolution is certainly a more 'convenient' stance. There is no creator God, and therefore no one to be accountable to when you die. Providing you obey the law, you can do whatever you want. On a human level, a pretty attractive proposition

If you acknowledge a Creator, and therefore creation, that whole scenario becomes a whole lot different. Decisions need to be made both for the way we live today and also with regard to eternity. Not such an attractive prospect on the human level.

It's easy to see on a non scientific level why Evolution is so attractive. And of course the devil loves Evolution; it negates the need of people to come to faith in Jesus.

Evolution is nothing to do with the existence of a creator and makes no comments on it.

You've just said that neither the Anglican or Catholic churches believe in God as the heads of both and the commonly held conventions accept evolution as fact.

Your attempts to make me read / watch the convincing 'science' are somewhat undermined by your repeatedly conflating, presumably at the prompting of this 'science', abiogenesis and evolution. These kinds of comments from believers of a young Earth remind me why I don't bother with that stuff very often.

The idea that atheism is convenient as it provides a pass to be immoral is beyond comedy. I don't believe in any afterlife, however good a human being I am. My consciousness ends irrevocably. Some would say that's pretty inconvenient relative to believing in eternal paradise if following the 'right' rules.

If you only have morals because you fear what might happen to you in the afterlife you believe in I'd take a really good, long look at yourself.

Basic values of decency, humanity, etc, should be internal and embraced because they are a better way for all to live, and are how you yourself would wish to be treated, not require duress from the threat of eternal damnation.

Thank you for the reminder of what Christian fundamentalism looks like. It's as ugly as pretty much every other kind, religious and non-religious alike.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Damien

Getting on a plane would post a bit of a problem as well. Given our understanding of gravity is 'just a theory'.

We do have the "Laws of Motion" which work here, but understanding gravity is different to accepting it. Does anyone understand what gravity is other than attraction to centre of mass?

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Evolution is nothing to do with the existence of a creator and makes no comments on it.

This is the point of God's Undertaker but there are some in the humanist/securalist/naturalist wing who do comment that science has proven the non-existence of God.

At best what science has shown is the the non-existence of god that really isn't what Christians believe anyway.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

We do have the "Laws of Motion" which work here, but understanding gravity is different to accepting it. Does anyone understand what gravity is other than attraction to centre of mass?.

It's not a question of acceptance, you cant' unaccept it. It is there, whether you accept it or not.

Gravity is a product of the distortion of space time due to an objects mass.

I'm not a cosmologist so don't really lose any sleep over it.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:55 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

At best what science has shown is the the non-existence of god that really isn't what Christians believe anyway.

Science hasn't shown the non-existence of a creator. The fundemental question of who or what created the universe is unanswered.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

This is the point of God's Undertaker but there are some in the humanist/securalist/naturalist wing who do comment that science has proven the non-existence of God.

At best what science has shown is the the non-existence of god that really isn't what Christians believe anyway.

Anyone who claims that science has disproven a God is quite simply wrong.

As I think I've posted here before I'm 99.9% certain that there's no God, but in the absence of proof to claim there is would be closed-minded and, well, arrogant. Were there evidence that there's no God that holds up to scrutiny that 99.9% would be 100%.