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

[Miles]

.


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

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

Or doesn't it matter?

.

[boatsnguitars]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]
I've looked thru several pages of responses to this post (certainly not all) and I don't see a single reasonable response from a theist. In fact very few responses at all from that camp, except the ubiquitous 12-whatever, the superficial, 'The Bible says so, so that's the truth. Prob'ly I missed a good response explaining why people are increasingly trusting evidence rather than empty preaching about imagined supernatural creatures rooted in the distant past when people thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

So... wise me up. Was there even one good, religion supporting post to explain why this obvious decline in religion does not mean people are increasingly realizing religion is, except for its meditative aspect, hooey?

[brunumb]

Other lights than sun exists, therefore it is perfectly logical to think that there could have been other light also in the beginning to cause day and night. Fascinating to find person who is a light denier.

OK then, give us a scenario that involves these other lights (please be specific) and explain how day and night result.

Edit: Just another point. You will need to include some sort of transition from whatever model you present to the current one where day and night are the outcome of a rotating Earth that is moving in orbit around a central Sun.

[1213]

Other lights than sun exists, therefore it is perfectly logical to think that there could have been other light also in the beginning to cause day and night. Fascinating to find person who is a light denier.

OK then, give us a scenario that involves these other lights (please be specific) and explain how day and night result....

Sorry, I don't know what exactly the light was at the beginning.

Nowadays it is taught light is photons. Maybe in the beginning God was the source of light and created photons. And when there was photons, it was called day and when there was not, it was called night. It doesn't necessary require earth moving in some way, just that at some point photons are sent and at some time they are not.

[1213]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

Why do you think that is not logical, or reasonable?

[1213]

But not daylight alternating with dark, which is what the Bible says. When you try to excuse the claim of daylight before the sun was made, you are not only in denial of science but the Bible.

Bible says:

then God said, Let light be! And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God separated between the light and darkness. And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.
Gen. 1:3-5

The light is not defined, so it is not possible to say it is impossible light.

...And everything about the Flood is illogical from enough water appearing to flood to a depth of 29,000 feet, but shoehorning all the animals needed to repopulate the earth into an oversized shoebox, and finally starvation rations for all when they finally debouch. All illogical and more. You are doing great work for atheism here.

I can agree that your idea about the flood is illogical. Luckily it is not what is said in the Bible.

The amount of water is not a problem, if you understand the situation before the flood. If you think it was the same as now, it is wrong. By what the Bible tells, there was one continent at the beginning, which was called earth, dry land. Under it, there was vast amount of water. The flood came when the continent was broken and its pieces sunk. After the event ocean floors have been compressed and gone down, causing the illusion that dry land rises. Before the ice age and compression of ocean floor, there was enough water to cover everything.

[boatsnguitars]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

Why do you think that is not logical, or reasonable?

Be serious, please.

I can't understand how churches ask people to believe such inane things, then, they teach their sheep to act outraged - shocked! - that people don't take their beliefs seriously.

I hope, at least, if 1213 is serious - that he sincerely believes that 'demons in pigs' is a real thing, that he sees how ridiculous it is, and have a little humor about it. Especially, I hope he doesn't get bent out of shape when people claim Mormonism is reasonable, or Wiccanism, or that they are cats.

I expect 1213 and others to say, "I respect your belief in Unicorns, as I too have some pretty silly beliefs about pigs and demons."

But, I suspect not.

[TRANSPONDER]

But not daylight alternating with dark, which is what the Bible says. When you try to excuse the claim of daylight before the sun was made, you are not only in denial of science but the Bible.

Bible says:

then God said, Let light be! And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God separated between the light and darkness. And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.
Gen. 1:3-5

The light is not defined, so it is not possible to say it is impossible light.

Of course the light is defined - it is daylight alternating with night. I know that you can make up anything you like, for example God faking daylight before there was a sun. But it is not about what you can deny but that to any Reasonable person, the Bible is simply wrong. It is claiming the sun was made after there was day and night.

...And everything about the Flood is illogical from enough water appearing to flood to a depth of 29,000 feet, but shoehorning all the animals needed to repopulate the earth into an oversized shoebox, and finally starvation rations for all when they finally debouch. All illogical and more. You are doing great work for atheism here.

I can agree that your idea about the flood is illogical. Luckily it is not what is said in the Bible.

The amount of water is not a problem, if you understand the situation before the flood. If you think it was the same as now, it is wrong. By what the Bible tells, there was one continent at the beginning, which was called earth, dry land. Under it, there was vast amount of water. The flood came when the continent was broken and its pieces sunk. After the event ocean floors have been compressed and gone down, causing the illusion that dry land rises. Before the ice age and compression of ocean floor, there was enough water to cover everything.

Every other Creationists seems to make up a different excuse for a flood that is not found in geology. The fact is that geology shows that mountains were upthrust in a way that folded strata in a way that would have taken millennia to bend strata like rubber (1). It was not done in a year or less and is not an illusion of mountains caused by 'compression of ocean floor', whatever that means in practical terms. Just why would the ocean floor compress other than to conveniently make the global flood look like oceans? And just how do you explain how a single continent was turned into different ones by the hydroplate collapse or perhaps being bashed in by a comet or asteroid - you don't seem clear which it was?

As to the animals, I trust you are not trying the 'Bible does not use those words' apologetic when it clearly says that two of each kind of animal was squeezed on the Ark. Enough to repopulate the world, aside from genetic bottlenecks that should show up in the DNA. It does not; Instead DNA show derivation from common ancestors and - yes - in the end, arguably to a single cell based on DNA.

Evidence and logic does not, despite denial, support the Bible, or your apologetic. The funny thing is that it doesn't even matter. Derail from decline of Christianity to arguing Genesis literalism yet again doesn't make a case for Christianity any more than for Judaism or Islam, all of which argue Creationism. It is Jesus and - specifically, the resurrection - that is the argument for Christianity, but of course, I know that Genesis literalism has become a cult on its' own account.

(1) the apologetic I heard that is was soft strata would have caused a collapse like a roof of stratified sand and dirt. It would not bend, tilt or roll over as is found in mountain - strata.

[JehovahsWitness]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

Why do you think that is not logical, or reasonable?

Be serious, please.

I can't understand how churches ask people to believe such inane things, then, they teach their sheep to act outraged - shocked! - that people don't take their beliefs seriously.

I hope, at least, if 1213 is serious - that he sincerely believes that 'demons in pigs' is a real thing, that he sees how ridiculous it is, and have a little humor about it. Especially, I hope he doesn't get bent out of shape when people claim Mormonism is reasonable, or Wiccanism, or that they are cats.

I expect 1213 and others to say, "I respect your belief in Unicorns, as I too have some pretty silly beliefs about pigs and demons."

But, I suspect not.

Emphasis MINE




Did you actually answer 1213's question?






JW

[TRANSPONDER]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

Why do you think that is not logical, or reasonable?

Be serious, please.

I can't understand how churches ask people to believe such inane things, then, they teach their sheep to act outraged - shocked! - that people don't take their beliefs seriously.

I hope, at least, if 1213 is serious - that he sincerely believes that 'demons in pigs' is a real thing, that he sees how ridiculous it is, and have a little humor about it. Especially, I hope he doesn't get bent out of shape when people claim Mormonism is reasonable, or Wiccanism, or that they are cats.

I expect 1213 and others to say, "I respect your belief in Unicorns, as I too have some pretty silly beliefs about pigs and demons."

But, I suspect not.

Emphasis MINE




Did you actually answer 1213's question?






JW

I'm not sure it needs answering as it comes down to whether one wears a tinfoil hat (whether for Jesus or not) or does not. You know and I know the choice of cut -off the Faithful have whether to say the eartyh is flat and has a dome over it and the sun was mad after daylight, and the sun was stopped trundling round the inside of the dome so Joshua could finish his tea, talking donkeys, illness caused by imps and cured with spit, and you -wall have to shose where you take of the tinfoil hat at say 'that's too daft for m'. In short, Science does ot have to prove itself to the flat earthers; people just have to decide whether thy are talking nonsense or not; and the same applies to demons zooming into pigs and sending them over the cliff like a bunch of porcine lemmings.