this is an excellent post overall, but i have to take issue here.  

the materialist assumption in science is epistemological, not ontological.  IOW, science does not make the claim that nothing exists beyond physical matter and causes.  for example, science doesn't say that lightning is certainly not the result of thor striking his anvil--it merely presumes that there is a physical cause, for methodological reasons.  if you allow the possibility that the supernatural is involved in nature, then no science can ever get done, because nothing can ever be ruled out.  the cause for anything might be magic, but that possibility doesn't help us understand the physical world.

the paradigmatic example comes from newton and planetary motion.  astronomers had already established heliocentric orbits pretty well, but no one could figure out what force could cause the orbits.  IIRC it was kepler or brahe who claimed that angels pushed the planets around.  newton discarded that notion, and assumed that natural events were the results of natural causes.  universal gravitation proved to be a pretty good explanation, replacing supernatural causation.

in short, the scientific method is just another way of saying "let's ignore magic, and see if we can find a natural cause to account for this physical event."  this does not in any way exclude the possibility that magic might exist.  it just means that such a cause is beyond the scope of science.

Thomas Aquinas was clearly a moron; utterly lacking in logic and reason.

Honestly it has been the opposite for me. There is a hell of a lot science knows and can explain. But there is an equal amount of stuff that no one has any answers to even in this day and age of technology. Like zero plausible theories. The lack of answers and the vastness of things pushed me to question where did it all come from. Honestly what drove me to god was a couple college level astronomy courses. The vastness of the universe is impossible to put into perspective it is so huge and no one knows where it ends, where is begins or how it came to be..

 




You do realize that at a point on the human timeline many generations ago, the (at the time) frightening and unknown nature of thunder was explained and believed to be caused by god(s) being angry. How many people today do you think still hold that belief?




Discovery, knowledge and facts have since replaced such mythology and folklore and have with innumerable other examples.




Does it occur to you that the same process continues? That we are at a point on the same timeline, further down that road, but where we simply haven't yet discovered all of the facts behind that which we don't know today?




History is replete with the obvious human nature to assign explanation and understanding to that which is, at the time, unknown. It obviously has served the purpose of comfort and reassurance, despite the incredibly lengthy list of things and events that were formally assigned to a god(s) doing, that we've since drawn a line through as valid, factual, evidence based knowledge has replaced these things as we continue to discover and learn.




Our place on the timeline of human learning and discovery is somewhere in the middle....and certainly not at the end. We may not live to see the facts be discovered in our lifetimes, much the same as many who thought thunder was caused by god(s) anger. I'm sure many of those folks went to their graves still believing that, as no better explanation existed prior to their death. But looking back, quite clearly in their haste to assign explanation, we know they were well intentioned....but very obviously wrong.


 

I give up.

You are evading the question.

Yes,yes it has and if/when such facts become available I am free to change me stance on the matter just as I did before. Until then I believe what I believe.

straw man argument...

That is kinda like saying "my Rifle is a 1 MOA rifle except for the constant fliers."  

If something is true, then it is true...if its off then its off.  

My position is that the Bible is accurate and true, and I have provided an objective historical standards that it meets as well as citations...

your position seems to be  that if is full of unexplainable fliers... show me the target.

Do you believe all truth resides in your personal experiences??

 
And there lies the crux of the matter.


Belief.....an explanation of some sort, without any facts and evidence is more important then the apparent discomfort of the unknown.


Personally speaking, I'm not only comfortable with not knowing something due to where my generation resides in human history....I also have confidence that during mine or another generation, the clear, continual and persistent pattern of discovery will continue as it has for thousands of years.


Oddly, as I type this in South Florida, its thundering right now. I'm glad I wasn't born 25,000 years ago, or I might be inclined to be terrified.  

Fine. It's off.

ETA:

1. 6 literal days of creation - not consistent with evidence
2. Global flood - not consistent with evidence
3. Bats aren't birds
4. Pi isn't 3
5. Snakes don't talk
6. Numerous contradictions

The historical accuracy of the bible is the least important of the questionable parts.

I am evading?

Excellent...show me where

(Repost from edit above)

1. 6 literal days of creation - not consistent with evidence
2. Global flood - not consistent with evidence
3. Bats aren't birds
4. Pi isn't 3
5. Snakes don't talk
6. Numerous contradictions

The historical accuracy of the bible is the least important of the questionable parts.

 
How about me, am I evading?

I think God pretty much told us everything we need to know about getting to heaven in His book. Anything we don't understand we can ask Him later.  He may not have spoken directly to you or me, but that itch in our conscious that makes one wonder about things is His way of talking to us these days.  ymmv

 

i don't know what you two are arguing about, but that graphic is hilarious.  cross off the word "miracles", and substitute "chemtrails", "the power of crystals", or "mermaids".

i'm half-convinced that it's satire.

Except, I went with

1. it meets all historical test for accuracy,

2.  Has eyewitness accounts that confirm the same acts- Yet attribute them to different causes

3. HAs historical and archaeological supporting evidence.

Eta-yes , by posting that and ignoring my previous points you are evading

I think it really is possible to apply some "logic and reason" to these claims, especially when it comes to examining the lives of the Apostles. Take Paul for instance, formally known as Saul, who was a Pharisee and a well known enemy of Christ, His followers, and the early Church. He was a highly educated legal scholar, highly regarded among the Jewish leadership, and he made it his mission in life to persue Christians anywhere they could be found and either jail them or kill them. He was infamous among the early Church as someone to be avoided at all costs.

So Ol' Saul and his posse of door-kickers were on their way to Damascus to lay down some hurt, warrants in hand BTW, when they were struck with a "light that outshined the sun".  A loud voice said "Saul, why do you persecute me?" It is then that the resurrected Jesus appeared to him and spoke more with him, again in front of witnesses. His vision was badly damaged and never did fully recover, and was a "thorn in the flesh" for him the rest of his life, a life that was changed instantly and permanently. I think he was given that to serve as physical evidence that anyone could see that the event really had ocurred.

Now "Paul" had everything he had in his previous life made null and void. His home, legal profession, and everything else were a thing of the past. He went from being among the Christian's worst enemies to the greatest missionary for Christ the world has ever known. No ammount of hardship or suffering could ever deter him on his many dangerous journeys, and in the end not even a death sentence could make him abandon his Lord.

Much the same could be said for the other Apostles as well. Hardly any of them could really accept that Christ had truly risen from death as He said he would until they finally saw Him personally. Then they too were committed to carry the Gospel to the world, no matter the cost, including death.

What "logical and reasonable" person would do that if what they had seen was some made-up nonsense? What "logical and reasonable" person would say that all the letters they wrote to those early churches, lovingly kept and copied to other churches, were the result of some huge, complex conspiracy to perpetuate a myth that never happened? Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of them would ultimately lose their lives over it, yet they embraced even that. Peter, eventually condemned to crucifixion himself, even went so far as to demand to be crucified upside down as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Christ. Is that the actions of an individual who knows it's all just a lie?

YMMV, but in my opinion a "logical and reasonable" person would stop and think about that really hard.  

Its called faith for a reason.

Well it seems you, as many others have, misunderstand my position. I do not know anything for sure. Anyone that claims to know beyond a reasonable doubt the origin, or how life was created is simply making educated guesses. Religious folks just base their educated guess off of what a book says instead of observable things like many scientists. My position doesn't really matter, I simply enjoy asking questions in hopes that eventually I may find an answer suitable for myself. That may or may not happen but it's not going to stop me from debating and asking the hard questions. Of course there will be some who dislike being asked the hard questions. Sometimes I get emotional responses and others people will give an answer that just simply lacks acceptable data for me personally. It's nothing against anyone, I just don't want to be uneducated. Every time there is a thread like this I learn something.

Great point! Within the assumption, the possibility of further fact is excluded, but you're absolutely right that the scientific process itself holds that assumption as an epistemological necessity for the pursuit rather than a claim regarding the absolute nature of things. I wasn't totally clear on that front. In most of these discussions, though, the root of conflict is between the more inflexible ontological variations of the assumptions, so that was primarily what I was addressing. I'm glad you stepped in to make the distinction, because I think it allows, when well understood, a broader ability to explore the universe in interesting ways.

 

I would argue that we suspend logic and reason for most things.

euphoria, science, moments, magnets, fedoras

That's an interesting dichotomy you are presenting.  Nothing about a belief in God contradicts science or the scientific method. The Catholic church is big into science.

Science gives us the what and the how, religion gives us the why.

take evolution, a subject that always stirs the GD pot.

Evolution is a process and does not deal with the origin of life.
Creation is an event.

the two work very well together.

nothing in evolution contradicts creation and vice versa. People tend to confuse a religious book for a science book.  Just like I don't expect to learn quantum mechanics from a book on American history, I don't expect a religious book, written at a time before germs were even understood, to teach any hard science..

Nothing in religion (of science) prevents God from coming up with the rules that makes everything work. Science is all about discovering those rules.  I think science brings us closer to God, not further from God.

YMMV

As a non-believer, I wholehearted agree with this.  I had to have a hard talk with one of my former employees who made a similar remark (that you have to be an idiot to believe in God and the Bible, or some such) to another employee who was deeply religious, and by the way, much smarter than the Athiest.

 

While I'm not a believer in God, I don't believe I'm any more likely to be correct than anyone else.  Why so many people can't respect one another's beliefs is beyond me.  


My kids sometimes go to church and are baptized Catholic and 3 of them have made their first Communion.  Some of my capital "A" Athiest friends have snidely asked me why I'm letting this happen.  My response is that they will make their choice for themselves, just as i did, and you did.  


My kids ask me about my beliefs from time to time, and I tell them exactly what I wrote above: While I'm not a believer in God, I don't believe I'm any more likely to be correct than anyone else.

i completely agree here.

I believe that a few pretty well known guys thought that.

So you believe in SCIENCE, like man made global warming.  But, don't believe in GOD because ........

In a vastly simplified single sentence, science attempts to answer How and religion attempts to answer Why.  They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it is equally wrong for either side to attempt to discredit the other.

FWIW, I lean Deist.  I think there is a creator, but whether it is the JudeoChristian God, some other religion's concept of God, or it takes a form that nobody has conceptualized yet, is unknown to me.

You do not have to suspend logic.  Logic dictates that there cannot be proof, therefore logic dictates that faith-based belief is not unreasonable.

Ponder omniscience, and what it means to know something.  That's how I got there...the smallest thought of God.  There's also some far east religious doctrine that explains it quite well, too, been around for a billion years, but I forget what it was exactly...some arfcommer pointed it out to me.  I think it was a Hindu thing.

The major difference is that science will say "We don't know."

This was really enjoyable to read, thank you.

That is a pretty broad brush to paint with.  

The internet is full of scientific evidence for God.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.  

And Bigfoot

uh-huh....

glad you got it...

But honest discourse require a thorough evaluation of the claims and evidences presented (by either side)

However, when either party rejects that premise- that is the  on which is demanding the most "faith", and least logic.

I think one of the problems is the subjectivity of it all. To some, the bible is "obviously" the truth, and anything that doesn't jive at first blush must simply need more study and deeper understanding. Nonbelievers see these logical problems and contradictions as deal breakers...They make it "obvious" that the bible isn't perfect. And neither side seems to be able to really understand the other's position.

I can't help but wonder if there are psychologist or physiological differences in people where some are "hard wired" to find faith, where others are more prone to want evidence, and less likely to let perceived discrepancies slide.

ETA Something else that seems to be subjective...the bible's status. Some see it as the evidence, while others see it as the claim.

Sorry I missed your point earlier about snakes , creation and the flood.

I'm glad I found it now-let's go with the flood.

Some Science claims the entire earth was covered with ice (ice age)

Every ancient culture has a flood narrative (I.e. Epic of Gilgamesh)

Clearly water cover the earth at some point and impacted every culture-Science proves that.

If it is so easy to except that Ice covered the earth... What happened when it melted?

Somethings are subjective-I outlined about seven different beliefs of creation That fall into to the realm of Christianity.

Some things have been proven-like H2o covered the earth.

You're confusing melting ice with the real story. The bible states that the water came from under the earth and from the sky. You do know this story right? Also how did he get all of these animals today onto a small ship? Surely you can't deny that evolution exists? (Not that you have said it doesn't)
I guess what I'm saying is there are a lot of claims that these are provable facts, but I have yet to find someone with those facts. You cannot say that the historical aspects of the bible, the people and places, prove the supernatural aspects of the book. Like some have mentioned, maybe some people are hard wired to be more susceptible to accepting blind faith while others may not. I just don't see why religious folks can't just accept that there is no proof. The bible can't be considered proof in a general sense. You may personally think that it is, but that doesn't make it so. Just as science doesn't disprove the existence of a greater being.



Is that so? Cite some for me then because you've found a gold mine if so.



Not necessarily true, many people who believe the creation story think that it discredits evolution. Some don't as well

Perhaps this guy was "divinely inspired" and he knows god's mind concerning the shape of the continents, throughout geological history.

On the other hand, maybe science just figured it out, from the evidence, without any hocus-pocus.

https://www2.nau.edu/rcb7/mollglobe.html

That's an excellent question.

The answers I get usually point towards faith and end there.

Dewey's Experiential Learning Continuum is basically applicable.  While not always true... it's usually truer than most alternatives.

The current theory to the proliferation of flood myths in European and west Asian history is that during the glacier retreat at the end of the last ice age, a glacier remnant was left in the area between the Mediterranean and Black Seas (where Istanbul sits today).  The water level in the Black Sea was considerably lower than it is today, and the water level in the Med was higher than current levels, and the glacier remnant was effectively a dam between the two seas, holding the water of the Med back.

There were villages living along the shore of the Black Sea and near by.  At some point, the glacier remnant gave way, and the water of the Med flowed in with incredible speed and volume.  The water level in the Black Sea rose greatly (at least 100 feet), drowning those villages.

However, there were survivors.  Having been suddenly washed away from literally everything they knew or owned with no warning or reason, the survivors became refugees, settling in various regions, and with various tales of their misfortune.  Though centuries of these stories being passed down orally, they distorted, merged, and then were finally written- codified into what became the bible.


EDIT: Oh, and related. due to observations by some ancient Chinese astronomers, and from geological records, it is now believed that the "Rain of fire and brimstone" at Sodom and Gomorah was debris from a comet or meteorite that exploded in the air over Germany. Computer models have shown that the debris could easily have fallen in the region in question. It would have killed many more people in Europe, but the survivors did not have stories that survived into modern society.

OP did not get out of religion.  He simply change his religion to Atheism.  As evidence by his desire to preach his new faith to all those heathen Christians...

Yes, at some point the earth was covered in water. At some point it was covered in ice and snow. At another, it was covered in lava and poisonous gasses. A REALLY long time ago. But that isn't the story.

One of the things that bugs me when people start rationalizing this stuff is that they "maybe this happened" and "it could have been THIS way...You can't prove it wasn't," so much that it all becomes meaningless. Every argument is reduced to Last Thursdayism.