But other scientific "evidence" is disputed: The Big Bang and evolution to name two.They can't be measured like gravity so of course there are differing opinions.Same info...different interpretations.I would expect those on both sides are sure they are right.Who is the final authority on subjects like these?You don't have one...are you playing make- believe? are the others that disagree with you playing make- believe?
The evidence for homoeopathy, astrology, vaccinations causing autism are also "disputed", but that does not mean that the people who take these sides have seriously looked at their own position. All it takes to refute homoeopathy, is for adherents to look at a few double blind studies, (all of which are done by graduates from their own homoeopathy colleges). All of these groups reject scientific method as a way to fault their position, even though they all say things like "astrology works", which is a scientific statement. Being brought up with science, all of them accept that things should "work", but reject any method which shows that they don't work, and can find no method which shows they do.
Science has numerous positions on the QM interpretation, which are quite contradictory: Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Transactional, Hidden variables. The reason why they can be so vague, is because there is ZERO evidence to support any interpretation against another. They may be all wrong. However, they are all right in the sense that they are constructed from verifiable evidence, and tell a rigorous story from one POV.
Homoeopathy, astrology, etc, all have different variants which severely contradict
each other. Not only is there no evidence to construct these different positions, there is no real evidence that any of it works, anyway. At least with vague scientific propositions, there is evidence to base the speculation on. So, for the Big Bang, we can see evidence of something in the background radiation. What this is, is subject to interpretation.
It can be seen quite clearly that humans can hold many contradictory positions on various beliefs, but you have to admit that some of them are just plain wrong, whereas some of them can construct computers, satellites and engineer stem cells.
Creationism starts with a story that God created the sun, stars and moon, three days after day and night, which is incorrect. Also, that plants were created the day before the sun. It then goes on to imply that Noah put an impossible number of species into an ark, then forgot plant-life, and then pulled off the impossible feat of re-distrubting marsupials and mistletoe species and parasites back to Australia. Creationists also have other problems such as areas on Earth having 3 layers of coal deposits with tree roots and footprint horizons in them, and then a 55km eroded volcano and plug pushing up through it all.
How do we solidly differentiate between complete rubbish and things which are very well substantiated? Well, obviously it's up to the user to see the bleed'n obvious. With scientific problems, I cannot see any other interpretation
, because I'm not bright enough to contradict the best scientists working in their respective fields
, but someone who believes in astrology and creationism can
figure out the crap, just by moderate thought processes. All they have to do, is drop their guard for a few minutes.
We can get in touch with Him through prayer and His Word.It is the most real thing there is ...it is eternal.What we know here and now is transitory.
If you can
get in touch with Him by prayer, then he should be telling Muslims and Mormons that they are going to hell. But, for some reason, God never points out to people that they are worshiping the wrong religion. I speculate that the reason for this, is that (1) God does not care, or (2) you aren't really in touch with God, or (3) it's more complicated than your doctrine knows.
This would explain why you can't settle any issues without killing the opposition.
That was quite a long list AH.I would hope you would know the response to several of them already.The 'loaded' questions you can't really expect one.Any serious questions I would like to see about an answer, though.
Here, you really tripped up. I only know the "responses", because I know what YOU would say, not because I can speak for all theists. You see some of them as being "loaded", whilst others somehow completely settled, and others you would like to know the answer to. There is no difference in any of them. There is no way to decide any of the questions, besides asserting your POV and hoping to wipe out dissent. This is what homoeopaths and anti-vaccinators do. It's not "loaded" to discuss whether Jesus resurrected. Bishop Spong, Anglicans, and Muslims seem to have their opinion. And there are more of them than Christian creationists. Do they win by popular vote, or by killing you, or by showing some damn evidence?
I know some very "talented" creationists believe that they can interpret geological evidence in a different way to scientists, so it is possible for incredibly determined people to misinterpret evidence,Which is of course what they say about the evolutionists.They might add something about them controlling the 'purse strings' as well.
OK, so now you are playing the underdog, but you are a member of a 2000 year old, insanely rich church structure. The Catholics and Anglicans, which are very rich, have decided that: no, the sun was not created 3 days after day and night. And there is ample evidence that the world is older than 10,000 years.
Yes, it can be said that there is an alternate position to evolution, but the alternate position can be seen through, by people of moderate intellect. Creationists also will not stick to any particular position, and their main motivation is to convince people by faulty procedure that their god made the world. If I said that the sky was blue, not because of the water in the heavens above the sun, but because it was the baby Jesus' favourite colour, and God made the sky according to the Jesu's preference, you would not be terribly worried at my intellectual bankruptcy, but would instead celebrate my discovery of Jesus.
Seriously, would you contradict me, if I said that there was a layer of water above the sun, moon and stars in the firmament? That's what your Bible says, so you can't. No matter how moronic it is, you can't contradict me.
Actually , Christ's Church is held together by God.What does the church machine look like in North Korea? Saudi Arabia?China maybe.The term "machine" sounds like it must surely be of great influence in those places.
Are you familiar with the term: " Human Rights Violation"?
Yes, I'm familiar with the idea that Anglicans and Catholics do not have a monopoly, and there are many other evangelical protestant sects who dissent and have viewpoints that they can't substantiate in any way.
I don't know what type of priest is being referred to here.But the statement strikes me as being something like this:
Not really, because you are building a off-topic strawman. I only introduced the Piraha tribe to demonstrate that there are some cultures which have a neutral indoctrination that makes them naturally resistant to Christianity, in a similar way to the way atheists reject it, but they were not formally atheists, prior to rejecting someone else's god-proposition. As far as I know, missionaries have not managed to convert any of them, largely because they ask impertinent questions that Christians and other theists are conditioned not to ask.
In summary, whilst science has room for interpretation on some
subjects, religion has no consensus on anything, or any verifiable evidence for any of the propositions.
NB: attacking science and evolution is not going to get you anywhere. You have to demonstrate proof of your own position.