Jack the Lad,

I note that I am a Christian. It is unclear whether or not you realize that.

I believe that I understand where you are coming from but believe there is more to consider. That doesn’t mean that I assume you are going to convert at the drop of a hat. However I believe that your questions can be answered differently and want to do so.

“Philo, existence of God is illogical. Who made God? Why? How? When?
Where is he?”

If that is illogical then the same could be said about your own dogmatic position. Who made the universe or the big bang? Why? How? When? We answer “God” and you can ask those questions a step further. Until you can give answers a step back do you think that that approach debunks our belief? With a belief in God it is easier to answer such questions. We can say that He is outside of time and space. Without God can you answer the questions a step back?

”Here's your scientific evidence - the religious are continuously moving the goalposts. …”

“In ancient times these were handy to explain the unexplained. As science advances, another unexplained phenomenon bites the dust and religion retreats another step.”

Please note two things:

1. Your perception of the interplay of science and religion makes a lot of sense but don’t lose sight of the fact that science is a medievally sourced artifact of the Christian religion. That science has proved workable at all affirms the Christian faith.

2. Many Christians see ourselves as pilgrims of truth so it doesn't cause us concern. We have revealed truth and humans minds seeking to discover it in its fullness, clarity, and beauty. We are relentlessly in search of truth (hence the initiation of science for truths in the physical universe). I can imagine the difficulties of someone with their skeptical spectacles on grasping the difference between what I am saying and blind faith but I ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt and give it some thought.

CONTINUED

2. (continued)

Note that discoveries that have improved our understanding have not removed any essential ethical precepts or the importance of God. We now have an accurate knowledge of the shape of the earth but we still disapprove of rape and adultery, for example. I suspect science will never justify overturning the clear word of God. Regardless of mistaken assumptions we have made the Bible is silent on the shape of the earth and many fine details. Again that is why we have science.

”Going further back, if Ireland had not been converted to Christianity, the future divisions couldn't have taken place.”

Are you sure it wouldn’t have just changed it to pagan and Anglican again as markers rather than causes?

”Another example of religios division is that of Serbia and Croatia where, originally the people were divided into Catholics and Orthodox, degenerating into ethnic conflict.”

I thought it was over land with Serbia wanting it all together and Croatia wanting independence but don’t know much about it.

”As Philo thinks that atheism is worse than any religion, what if I convert to Odinism and kneel before Mjollnir (Thor's Hammer)? Would that make things better? He needs a crash-course in realism.”

I’d answer yes and no. I don’t think it would help because you have a Christianish upbringing and, I believe, sound ethics. Having slipped out of Christianity I don’t believe Odinism would help. You have all you need. Whether or not you bridge the gap between you and spiritual fulfilment will depend solely on your reasoning.

However if you had never had Christianity I believe Odinism might be beneficial. Religions typically point to God often in a very culturally based way. For example, kneeling before a symbol of Thor would help you realize that there is something greater than yourself, and the religion would help you: realize the fact of the eternal soul, love God’s creation, appreciate the value of truth, and the value of life etc. all helping prepare you for the saving Word of Jesus Christ.

mjpb,
I did note your email in an earlier post as watashi@live.com.au, where you inquire about my objection to anal sex. Is that what you wish to discuss?

Philo, my question trhat you took as rhetorical was aimed at you because of your accusation that I was morally barren if I had no religion. Also, you think that my choice not to believe is based on ignorance and immaturity and causes me to believe in 'self absorbed anarchy, reactionary undisciplined behaviour and total disrespect of others in society'.
I merely pointed out that I have lived a reasonably normal lifestyle, in fact I heven't even had a criminal conviction in all my life. Then I passed the ball over to you.
You really lost it when you wrote that my lack of religion makes me an 'anarchist, not far removed from the cave dwellers.' If that's the attitude of the piously religious, you can definetly keep it. I pulled you up on these statements before but you chose not to attempt to justify them.
You still haven't explained how I am 'fighting a lost cause' or how I was 'comic infantile '. Maybe you never will.

mjpb, when you wrote 'Who made the universe or the big bang? Why? How? When? We answer “God” ' did you mean that the religious community now accept Big Bang theory and attribute it to God? If so, that's what I meant by moving the goalposts.

I can't answer how the Big Bang (if it occurred) came about. It is only a theory but one that many scientists can promote in understandable terms. When it comes to religion, we are expected to accept the concepts on faith.
I don't understand your idea that science is a 'medievally sourced artifact of the Christian religion'. The ancient Greeks and Chinese were involved in scientific studies long before the Christian era.
The Serbs and Croats have a common ancestry (all Slavs) and their languages are of the Central South Slavic branch. The division of the people was caused by their choices of different forms of Christianity as, ethically, they are very close.
As an athiest, I can 'appreciate the value of truth, and the value of life'. In fact, maybe I would value life more than someone religious as I know that there is no hereafter and I only have this one chance on Earth.

Jack there is no need to be defensive. I was demonstrating what is the conclusion of your claims. No system of values to discipline and form your life around as I said, 'self absorbed anarchy, reactionary undisciplined behaviour and total disrespect of others in society'.

I knew you would not agree to this being the foundation values of your life. Of course you have a religious code of conduct. It is just that you deny being religious. You haven't thought through your values.