Religion or Science - How do they compare?

No, many don't even believe in God, but they explain it all away by declaring that human wisdom is all we have and all we ever had and that through math and science all can be explained better than old fables and dogma can explain it.Lets assume for a moment that there actually is a true revelation inferred in and through the Bible and that the so-called dogma of our cult--which would be labled by jar as the CCoI (Christian Culture Of Ignorance) was actually close to being true. If so, keep in mind that the very words that you type here on this forum are the salvos of revelation from the Holy Spirit. That means that everytime you get mad, insulted, or angered by the comments of others (who are unknowing tools of satan) you actually make Christians look weak, desperate, and uncaring of real world evidence.
Now,lets take jar...since he is the logic, reason, and reality apostle to the atheists.
He claims to have no agenda and no bias...but his own quotes indict him: The agenda? Teaching that the Bible is just another book. Also teaching that all religions and beliefs are equally valid. The belief here is that human wisdom (ye shall be as gods...) is all that we have or ever will have. Worship focuses around communion with each other and doing as Jesus did...feeding the hungry, comforting the sorrowful and clothing the naked. This is good teaching except that it brings Christianity down to the level of humanism. Churches may as well be the United Way! In other words, humans simply need to man up and be responsible and learn to help each other and that this planet will make it if we do as Jesus taught. The agenda? That we are responsible and no God is gonna save us or bail us out. My only comment on that is that if the world fell into another war that caused mass poverty, death, and destruction, dollars will get you doughnuts that people would turn to the belief that Jesus will give us a way out. jar would preach that humans would have to pick themselves up and start over again. One side believes Jesus saves. The other side believes that humans and only humans can help (or hurt) themselves. The "dogma of this cult" is that jesus was a teacher who taught us what we could become and was a human as the rest of us.All of this wouldnt be so bad if jar and others had more respect for what the mainstream apologists and Christian leaders teach and believe. They dont have to agree with it so much as simply acknowlege that the majority of mainstream orthodox teaching supports a Divine jesus, a sacrifice on the cross, and relationship with God and others.Instead,. mainstream belief is belittled and ridiculed. "a carney sideshow...palming the pea...misdirecting the audiences attention"....while logic, reason, and reality are preached....which seems rational on the surface until one thinks out the implications of such a religion. Many of whom?
Reading the Bible without acknowleging God is like reading Moby Dick without believing in whales. I would argue that the Bible does have a connection and purpose. it is not simply some critical book of antiquity to be studied alongside the other beliefs.The Gideons summarize it well in the introductory statement in every Bible they place: The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

​

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

​

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

​

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

​

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Gravity is a force. A uniform force. Humans, in contrast, are somewhat flexible and developmental. (which can be observed in sociological interactions between cultures) Are you thus suggesting that there is nothing (or no one)yet detectable that is bigger than humans? Well, I can't argue with you there. Define magical, however. Evidence, science, and rational conclusions seem to be a form of "because". Such maturity in the human race! We stopped asking why..... What actually happened, however, is that we took the responsibility ourselves rather than allowing a "magical Being" to have it. I have one. Define accident. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Explain yourself further. Set up a scenario and show that what Faith is proposing involves no real choice.

Based on dogma, Satan is a good choice. You may have even mentioned that he got a bum rap. He has no choice to be left alone by God. He chose independence and because of that, he is doomed to spend eternity in a place he likely never chose. He can't simply move into a new realm and set up his own franchise.

You just said it. Atheists don't really get to choose to be atheists. It's like covering your ears and eyes and blotting out what is.Evidence be damned.Of course, I can choose to deny gravity and attempt to fly off a cliff. But reality always wins in the end.In regards to our ongoing debates on these matters, the jury is out...until we die.At that point, either you or I will be surprised at reality. Or maybe both of us.

We can never know whether God is simply a product of our imagination or whether we are a product of His imagination initially...ideas and beliefs are all we have. God has no physical, measurable or verifiable form.Granted it is possible that our ideas are wrong....evn likely.If you imagined a God, what characteristics would this Deity have? Would He simply leave you alone and be happily invisible? Would He be a She?

In defense of Faiths position: There is no such thing as a "Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty". This is a creation of your own bias and the views you market. Whoever "the rest of us" is it is not a group with any sort of consensus. Looking at the evidence, what Faith is "marketing" is in line with traditional beliefs.
Wiki article on penal substitution.
In your defense, the article does state that "in scholarly literature, it has been generally recognized for some time that the penal substitution theory was not taught in the Early Church. The ransom theory of atonement in conjunction with the moral influence view was nearly universally accepted in this early period."St.Augustine is hardly regarded by scholars as a member of a cult of ignorance and dishonesty, and you should be called out for attempting to paint Faith into such a corner without examining the evidence.To assert that early Christianity was a cheap marketing gimmick only holds water as a baldfaced assertion without evidence. There is no evidence that anyone was selling anything.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

well, you do have a point.Personally, I don't believe that these early doctrines are necessary reflections of reality--- let us just say that I remain unconvinced---but I was defending Faith based on the source of the doctrines rather than the content and belief in authoritative orthodox teaching. She holds to the content as infallible and basically non-negotiable philosophically, whereas I do not.My critics from within the church would say that I remain uncommitted to endorsing orthodox belief.My critics here at EvC would say that I remain willfully ignorant by even considering such beliefs as logical, reasonable, or rational.And jar could be a little nicer to his opponent rather than repeating the idea that modern Biblical Christians are willfully ignorant. Why not ask Faith why traditional orthodox teaching must never be questioned?

To me, consensus comes from a wide and varied audience--not from one old codger with critical thinking who argued philosophy on a battleship gray front porch and who formed his own dogmatic views.There are ground rules within the framework of the consensus.God by definition does not lie. satan by definition has no truth in him. Making up a new rule based on one's own interpretation of what is written will have to pass the muster of the group. Otherwise, we may as well introduce Loki and the spaghetti monster as reasonable alternatives to the Creator of all seen and unseen.Which can be done of course. I vote to stick to the concept of an intelligent Creator who is not learning on the job and who is not simply a product of the imagination of early authors...no matter what inspiration is claimed for them. After all, if they could be inspired, why can't we also?

I quote John 8:44 but of course, you will say that it is altered marketing. There is no winning with you.

What facts?

And yet none of these people gain any credibility beyond their most immediate community--even in an age of mass communication. Paul went on to write several books about it and the belief caught on. Scholars have dissected the story in numerous ways and wrote entire books themselves on it. You may argue that the reason is that the product is easily and successfully marketed, but my point is that you don't see any modern martyrs anywhere approaching the level of notoriety.There is no conclusive evidence that the resurrection never happened either. There is support both for and against...and note that these book writers are also marketing ideas. *we* have arrived at no such consensus. you simply jumped on a convenient bandwagon...but it's hardly the only one. Ask yourself what facts you have. Where did you get them? What reasons do you have for accepting them?I will admit that I accept an appeal to popularity, but I have had personal experiences also.You've never had a need for religion, whereas I have. You have always liked being independent of authority and free willed. I have needed a friendly supportive authority figure.Perhaps it is why we are on opposite sides of the fence in this ongoing debate.And perhaps the legend still exists because many people need what I need. Far fewer need what you need.

There are always multiple sides to any argument, and I found this one quite well done: Refutation Of Richard CarrierThe "blue fairy" analogy is priceless!

It would appear that way to any observer. Some scriptures state otherwise, however: Of course, honest skeptics such as yourself are unimpressed with scripture as a supporting argument. One side would assert that the Gospel of John is an authentic explanation, whereas the other side would simply claim that John was written, edited, and redacted by men with differing motives and ideologies from the other three Gospel accounts. Additionally, you would claim that human understanding has evolved quite a bit from when these original accounts were written. I did find an interesting review of the Gospel of John online, however. In A Nutshell...Shmoop articles are authored by teachers (high school or college level), Ph.D. and master's students (e.g., Stanford, Harvard, and Yale). They base the articles on credible academic sources and then cite the source. Shmoop also provides citations for students...definitely not written by conservative apologists! What difference would it make if the vessel died or not? Is it so hard to grasp that the human allowed God to work through him?

Point taken. I need to work on myself and not worry so much about the poor lost masses..because only if I am healthy and sound can I begin to help them anyway...apart from feeding them and handing out spare change ala ringo.I agree with you that religious dogma has not exactly helped the world exclusively as there are many problems associated with it...but there has been some good come of it also. Perhaps we can begin to use some of your thousand better ways...where do we start?