Christians, What Do You Make Of The Decline Of Your Religion?

[Miles]

.


....................

.................... source

Or doesn't it matter?

.

[Clownboat]

It is embarrassing, if "experts" can't do anything better than call their opinions scientific theories.

OMG!!! No you didn't!
You should be embarrassed!

Ya, like our opinions on gravity! Gravity isn't real, it's just a theory!

[boatsnguitars]

That's right. They just give their opinions on germ theory! It's just a whim!

At 12, they decide on a cult and defend it, regardless. They decide: "I'm deciding to have an opinion on electromagnetic radiation. While I study it and use it to feed myself and family, I don't care about how it fits into other facts, it's just an opinion... After all, we are in a post-truth world, so all I need is an opinion... I mean, people one the Internet can disagree, and I have to accept their opinions is equal to mine..."

Scientists! Am I right?!?!! Smh.....

[1213]

...It must be notorious that you didn't see the Bible plainly saying as Good reason to suppose Genesis says that there was daylight before the sun was made, before we even got to strata with fossils showing an evolutionary match to the order as well as age of the rocks which is not 'Good Reason' to suppose the evidence fits evolution better than Creationism.

When the age of rocks is based on assumptions that can be wrong, it is not a good reason to believe, if the only reason to accept the wrong assumptions is to hold the belief in evolution theory.

[brunumb]

...It must be notorious that you didn't see the Bible plainly saying as Good reason to suppose Genesis says that there was daylight before the sun was made, before we even got to strata with fossils showing an evolutionary match to the order as well as age of the rocks which is not 'Good Reason' to suppose the evidence fits evolution better than Creationism.

When the age of rocks is based on assumptions that can be wrong, it is not a good reason to believe, if the only reason to accept the wrong assumptions is to hold the belief in evolution theory.

But there is no pay-off for holding on to a belief in evolution theory. In fact, there would be a huge pay-off if one could legitimately and irrefutably demonstrate that the theory of evolution was false. I wonder if you apply the same criterion when it comes to holding on to your religious beliefs.

[TRANSPONDER]

...It must be notorious that you didn't see the Bible plainly saying as Good reason to suppose Genesis says that there was daylight before the sun was made, before we even got to strata with fossils showing an evolutionary match to the order as well as age of the rocks which is not 'Good Reason' to suppose the evidence fits evolution better than Creationism.

When the age of rocks is based on assumptions that can be wrong, it is not a good reason to believe, if the only reason to accept the wrong assumptions is to hold the belief in evolution theory.

That is what we call 'science denial'. Even after stratification with fossils that fit evolution, the composition of strata that suggest millions of years to build up,like chalk cliffs made up of miniscule seashells, not to mention changing environment as carboniferous coal and oil layers under what are supposed to be Flood levels, and changes in flora as well as fauna, plus salt mined (dried up oceans) all fit deep time geology better than Genesis and Exodus, even before the radiometric dating methods that confirmed it. You are denying science in favour of Biblical bias.

Up to you but don't try to pretend that such an argument is anything other than dismissing evidence and reason in favour of Faith.

[1213]

But there is no pay-off for holding on to a belief in evolution theory. In fact, there would be a huge pay-off if one could legitimately and irrefutably demonstrate that the theory of evolution was false. I wonder if you apply the same criterion when it comes to holding on to your religious beliefs.

By what i see, scientists gets the results, which gives them money. If they would deny evolution theory, or things supporting it, they would lose money and credibility and job.

[1213]

....You are denying science in favour of Biblical bias...

No, I just don't accept everything people claim about scientific findings.

[TRANSPONDER]

But there is no pay-off for holding on to a belief in evolution theory. In fact, there would be a huge pay-off if one could legitimately and irrefutably demonstrate that the theory of evolution was false. I wonder if you apply the same criterion when it comes to holding on to your religious beliefs.

By what i see, scientists gets the results, which gives them money. If they would deny evolution theory, or things supporting it, they would lose money and credibility and job.

This vile accusation that scientists lie because thy'd be sacked i they denied evolution, etc, is refuted by peer review and the argument of creationists themselves - 'science is always changing its' mind'. The fact is that other scientists are always debating the findings and rsearch and if it fails to stand up, that's when jobs are at risk, not when they question and doubt.

Of course that is projection because not only is you job, social standing, freedom and even life at times at risk if you don't play along with the religion, and you accuse science of doing the same. This is the danger with religion. I believe you are basically a nice and decent person, and you only throw out malicious accusations like this in efforts to prop up your own science - denial. But that can and does lead to persecution and exclusion. And just the example of creationist projects excluding from employment anyone who does not sign a declration of faith shows the danger, as well as the irrationality and denial of fundamentalist religion.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to 1213 in post #147]

Based on what criteria?

Because it appears some Christians start with the Bible, then question everything that conflicts with it.

You'd agree this is flawed reasoning, yes?

Because it appears some Christians don't question the experts that support their chosen religion.

For example, experts agree that Jesus probably lived, but there is less direct evidence that he did than Evolution is true.

However, Christians seem to not only believe Jesus lived, but that they are betting on it. Whereas, with Evolution, they won't be impacted by it, so it's easy to dismiss, even though they are abjectly wrong.

Plus, it gives them a perfect opportunity to earn their Persecution Points. (Which I believe drives the anti-intellectual strain in Christianity)

[TRANSPONDER]

....You are denying science in favour of Biblical bias...

No, I just don't accept everything people claim about scientific findings.

Of course not. You cherry pick what you want to believe and what you don't. I still find your evasiveness about the earth made before the sun telling. This is just as science - denialist (only done to avoid the inescapable conclusion that Genesis is wrong) as your denial about rock - stratification, fossil grading and radiomentric dating, and you say plainly that you don't accept 'everything'. Not even what the Bible plainly says in black and white. You really don't see a problem here? When Faith based denialism has you deny not only Science ( You ain't the only one by long way), but also the Bible itself. and even the religion in favour of you refusing to admit that you have something wrong.

The thing is that this isn't unusual, it is normal instinctive communication, but usually people try to go by what is taught, generally accepted, consensus practice and efforts to base opinions on valid information (1). I have been in the presence of alternative beliefs, like the UFO cult, and I was in Buddhism for a while, and the self - justifying and denialist arguments you use are natural. They are the way of human thinking without accepting whatever 'the wise' say, which is when we get everything from karens sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting (eyes closed, too )when anyone tries to explain to them, to denial of not only science, but the Bible itself.

You really don't see a problem here?

(1) which is why control of media and information is priority for dogmas, cults and regimes. If they can't control information, they try to cut their dupes and victims off from information.