Hey FrGamble!

Quote: Nareed

What science does is show there is no observational evidence at all to even suppose the existence of a deity. But it's also misused by religion to make its case. For example the notion that the universe has a definite and known beginning; we really don't know that's what the Big Bang was (and I've argued this a number of times).

No science provides observational evidence that is used by philosophy and theology to point to the existence of God. Science can never be used to even suggest the idea there is no God. It is misused by atheists to make its case. Science fits very well into the idea of God who creates a reasonable law abiding universe in which the miracle and mystery of life can surprisingly exist. Atheists can't even explain why there is something rather than nothing, much less why this universe follows laws that can be studied and trusted, why consciousness, intellect, and life exist, why we are so curious and intrigued to explore the amazing universe that exists around us? This is why true science got its start by people who believed in God.

I can see a neutered practical science exploring why things work the way they do being of interest to an atheist, but when your fundamental position is the universe is an accident without a cause and destined to meaninglessness you don't reach to the dizzying heights we see science has risen to today.

We don't really know what the Big Bang was but regardless it points to the philosophical truth and theological position that the universe came into existence out of nothing from a non-contingent, all-powerful, eternal, spiritual first cause we all call God.

Quote: FrGamble

No science provides observational evidence that is used by philosophy and theology to point to the existence of God.

Not unless you think you can use it.

Quote:

Atheists can't even explain why there is something rather than nothing,

Neither can you or your faith.

Quote:

We don't really know what the Big Bang was but regardless it points to the philosophical truth and theological position that the universe came into existence out of nothing from a non-contingent, all-powerful, eternal, spiritual first cause we all call God.

That's a perfect example of theology NOT using observational evidence obtained by science to point to the existence of a deity. Good job.

Quote: FrGamble

Philosophy and science are very different fields of knowledge. However, both need to be guided by truth.

Both are attempts at finding the truth, actually. This rules out untested preconceptions taken on faith. so, for both, no scriptural guides are valid.

Quote: Nareed

Not unless you think you can use it.

The good thing about science is that you can and really have to use it all. You can't pick and choose the things that can say one thing and ignore those that say another. Its just the facts, ma'am.

Quote:

Neither can you or your faith.

Sure philosophy can explain this quite easily, you just necessarily need the concept of God which is reasonable enough. Atheism neuters itself by unreasonably not allowing this possibility. It therefore remains dumbfounded and helpless in the face of these ultimate questions.

Quote:

That's a perfect example of theology NOT using observational evidence obtained by science to point to the existence of a deity. Good job.

What observational scientific evidence cannot do is prove (or disproof) the existence of a deity. However, we can use such evidence to ask ourselves what these observations may say to philosophy or theology. Does for example the idea of an expanding universe and the theory of a Big Bang fit comfortably into the philosophical and logical God of the Philosophers and/or does it fit into the theology of Christianity? The answer to both questions is yes. Does it make atheists uncomfortable? The answer there is yes as well.

Quote: Nareed

Both are attempts at finding the truth, actually. This rules out untested preconceptions taken on faith. so, for both, no scriptural guides are valid.

Yes, this is very true and we are in agreement.

Quote: FrGamble

How I wish people were seriously looking for answers to the mysteries and challenges of life. Instead we seem to be content with being entertained. As GK Chesterton famously said, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanted, it was found difficult and not tried." If people are looking for answers that satisfy their desire to not be challenged and conform their lives to truth then they will look in other places than the Gospel.

However, if they are seriously looking at the answers to the meaning of life and the dilemma of humanity then I am confident that they will find the answers they are looking for in Christianity.

well of course this depends on how people answered the questions, but in

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

you can see that "other christian" has barely changed, and "Nothing in Particular" under "Unaffiliated" is what has grown the most.

So the answers that these people are finding, if any, are not from christianity.

it is kind of silly to label these people as "not wanting to be challenged and conform their lives..." as if that is the reason they are becoming "nones." I haven't seen anything to back up this opinion for the reason people are leaving christianity.

It would be interesting to see a larger picture of the cultural landscape of today. I wonder for example how has the time we spend on the internet, watching tv, money spent on movies and sports, etc. increased over the years. I also wonder how has drug use increased or the amount and quality of our high school graduates and college attendees. These statistics might help to see if the problem is whether people have stopped asking the questions and if they desire to be challenged verses they have sought seriously the answers and found them wanting.

Switching gears, but based on the thread's title, I figured it was the best god thread to use.

You have asked before or wondered aloud where dislike of the church comes from, and I think the overwhelming cause for most (or at least the most frequently talked about), has been from unpleasant contact with church members. Well, I came across a different one that I thought I'd share for your consideration, as well as to get your take on it.

The church sends out a godly amount of mail (and I do mean "godly" as opposed to "ungodly", as only a deity could produce this much f#$%ing paper =p). Much of it is completely uninteresting; just more garbage mail for me to toss when I'm back on base. But where things in the mail which offend me are concerned, the church wins the title hands down. And it ain't even close.

I got one old woman on my route. Hers is the only mail I pay attention to and I have been doing so for some time. She gets copious amounts, and a metric ton of it is in some way or another church related. Now, much of church mail is no different than any other; the only way I even know it's church mail is the return address. But the others? It makes me want to gather it up, go to the church, and demand "What is the meaning of this?!"

Here's one. It has a pic of some third world youth suffering some malady, usually cleft palate. The pic is prominent, never in a corner or small or in the background. Just BOOM!, twisted youth, right in your face. And it comes with some empty platitude "Won't someone think of the children?" or other such bleh. In it (because I opened one) is some story about all the church is doing and won't you send some money, too? This one doesn't "set me off", and I'd probably just ignore it on its own, but it's not over.

Tons of stuff like this comes through. This lady gets every one, so I'm bombarded with the whole line up every day. Behind cleft palate was the typical starving African child, complete with old man face and bloated stomach. Same "Won't you?" plea, same "gimme, gimme" message. But then, oh then, there's one that set me right off and into the red.

It caught my eye because "DRAGGED STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!" was blasted across the front in jagged, glaring, blood red font. Under the font was a pic of a zoo or circus tiger. The tiger was being "dragged" out of its cage by men who had it by the rear. Claw marks stood out in the dirt behind it's splayed paws. The problem? IT WAS COMPLETELY F#$%ING FAKE! The amount of photoshop errors present was laughable, perhaps being able to fool the very young or very old, but no one else. And again, another plea, another "Won't you", another "gimme gimme".

The only word I can come up with when I see and/or think about this stuff is "predatory". Now, please don't misunderstand and think that I'm sitting here believing the church is the only place this happens. Tons of s#$% sets me off in the same fashion, whether it's a woman's mag or a PETA flier. But neither Cosmopolitan nor PETA hold themselves as moral arbiters, or the keepers of all that is good and just. The church, though, does. And the amount of poor taste found in these standard mail examples overwhelms the senses.

I'm just tossing this out there because it is just another thing that makes me scoff at the church, and, as I said, I thought I remember you wondering what has set us off or caused us to hold the opinions we do. This certainly is one of my reasons, which I view as just more of the "do as I say, not as I do" problem many godly folk seem to have.

Thoughts?

She gets so much mail because she's gives
to groups and is on their sucker lists. They'll
bombard her till after she's long gone. It's
the same with giving money to street people.
If they recognize you as a giver they'll never
leave you alone.

Churches are predatory in nature, they can't
help themselves. It's a racket that pays the
salaries of 10's of thousands of people, and
once in awhile they actually help people too.

Mother Teresa was a shill for the Church, she
was their biggest money maker of the 20th
century. They hope when she's a saint the cash
faucet will start flowing again. That's what's
behind the fast tracking her to sainthood.

Quote: Evenbob

She gets so much mail because she's gives
to groups and is on their sucker lists. They'll
bombard her till after she's long gone. It's
the same with giving money to street people.
If they recognize you as a giver they'll never
leave you alone.

Certainly, but my issue isn't that the church asks, but rather the manner in which they were doing so. If the Salvation Army ding-a-lings outside Walmart, or St John's goes door to door, or the firemen clog an intersection with their boots, whatever. No problem. It's simple, honest. Pain in the ass sometimes, but honest.

What I'm seeing here is not that. Not only is it offensive that they lied (photoshopping to insinuate something happened which did not is absolutely lying), and offensive that they use psychological weaponry, it's both offensive that they think I or mine would be stupid enough to believe it, as well as offensive that they take advantage of the trusting, the simple, and the crazy. It bothers me when commerce does it, it angers me when the church does it. You can't claim to be the righteous and the just and stand for all that is good, and then do some back alley sleeze ball s#$% like this. You just can't. It'd be like your beloved father stealing from you. The bar of trust is just too high for hijinks, so any breach is automatic disqualification.