A friend of mine is a pretty die-hard Christian (shock horror, both of his parents are missionaries/vicars) and he often posts little sayings of some kind or another on Facebook, which I usually ignore. However, today he posted something that really irritated me for some reason:
"The more I look at science, the more in awe of God I become."
And just to make that worse, one of his Christian friends commented "Boom" as if he had made some kind of infallible argument. Somehow, I feel as though nothing I say will make any difference because they must be incredibly deluded already to believe that God just "invented" science. Basically, this is the guy who thinks he's a "modern and intelligent" Christian by saying that things like Noah's Ark are "just stories and aren't meant to be taken seriously by Christians". But if that is true, then why take ANY of the Bible seriously and where does he draw the line between stories and (what he believes is) the truth?
In the past I asked him and his friend where the evidence was. He claimed science (yes, seriously) helped prove Christianity and that Christianity was about "opening yourself" to it and believing, and then you "feel God" or whatever. How do you argue with someone like that??
What do you all say to religious people (not necessarily just Christians) who claim that science is just an invention of God? Is there a specific way to argue with someone who twists everything to awkwardly suit modern day thinking?
If the universe were orderly, it wouldn't be beautiful. Suppose the stars in the sky were arranged in a huge matrix. Row, columns, etc. What a bore. Instead, while there are certain structures like galaxies, within those galaxies you don't find a whole helluva lot of order. And outside the galaxies, it's even worse. Irregular clouds of dust and gas, rocks just wandering around. It's pretty helter-skelter. If there's some order to it, it's pretty difficult to find it.
At any rate, the notion that everything was created by some sort of immaterial super ghost is just hilarious. How can you take it seriously? I mean, even if you don't take The Big Bang seriously, what makes your ghost theory believable?
Hum, in the attempt to reduce the theist world view, it seems that you might have crossed the line into 'over simplification'. Not mentioning the effects of gravity, dark matter, and large scale structures that have been documented in the 'random' distribution of galaxies, seems to ring the bell, of 'did you forget something?'
On small scales, the distribution of matter might seem 'random', but the afformentioned details are in play. Sadly, without very good equipment to do observations, the most gross generalities can become accepted dogma.
While we might differ with theists on rather important details, honesty still demands something 'more' from us.
Yes, if it were arranged in columns and rows, it would be more like a spread sheet! If gravity were of no importance, maybe 'columns and rows' could be possible, but what would keep such a structure stable?
Some 'intelligent', or atleast some 'obsessive-compulsive' intelligence could be suggested, with the funny desire for a rather obvious and uninteresting desire for order. I think what we have is definitly more interesting, but a little maddening. I think we have mostly mined the depths of 'cosmic intelligence', and found a rather limited indication. I tend to leave that concept on the shelf, with little hope to ever resurrect it, as more a novelty of the early days of supposition...
, in the attempt to reduce the theist world view,
Could we just be honest and come out and say that the theist world view is "I'm scared of death!" ?
So your saying there was no peer review? Just statements pooping into existence from human minds with no known address?
"Gods invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen,"
How do you get from "invisible qualities" to "clearly seen"?
as if Christians are adverse to inventing and utilizing technology
You're right, after all theists came up with a shit-ton of torture methods.
That's what you can pride yourselves with.
I see we're gonna have to spell out everything for you. Yes they were all true members of the cult Christianity. You cannot exclude them because you don't like it, Scotty.
Whether that's true or not, they used Christian teachings as an excuse for their actions.
Is "no true Christian" anything like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
I suppose it wasn't "true Christians" who burned William Tyndale and John Hus at the stake for creating Bibles in a language other than Latin? Who do you suppose, in 1517, burned seven people at the stake for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin?