Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[POI]

Let me rephrase my question. Certainly I can think of scenarios where I would lie to my daughter when she was very young as well, but would you deliberately lie to your children about something which you b]believed[/b] was essential to their lives? For example would you ever tell them that it was okay to play with a loaded gun? Did you tell your children when they asked about God that "there is no God" or did you tell them the truth and say "I do not know?" If you said "There is no God" were you not doing the exact same indoctrination you accuse religious people of?

You can rephrae it all you want, but it still fails to address what you are to be responding to.
Again: "It is happening at a point in the childs life where they will believe just about anything an authority tells them."

Yes, to the loaded guns. I have spent time with both of them 'playing' with loaded guns. We started with air soft. They have played with .22's while supervised of course.
I don't tell my children that there are no gods.

Can you explain why you are dodging what I'm actually saying which has to do with when humans typically learn about the gods?

That may be true from a 21st Century perspective, but there is no way in the world that a person from 3500 years ago would think that.

Then you are just being silly. Of course a person from 3500 years ago could strive to not accept beliefs uncritically. What an odd claim you made.

So if it is not a geography thing, you seem to be suggesting that you are just better or more moral then those that are born in a part of the world where such a belief is not so alien to them. What makes you inherently more moral then those born where such beliefs are not so alien? I would have thought it a geography thing, but you argue otherwise.

As I said I believe that there is such a thing as "universal truths". That no matter where you go in the universe all intelligent people will hold them to be true.

So Muslims are not intelligent. You sure you want to make that claim?
Again, we were discussing the concept of killing someone because they didn't believe the same as you did. If this is a universal truth as you claim and only intelligent people would hold them as true, that informs us that you think Muslims are unintelligent for not seeing this universal truth that you make an empty claim about there being.

While the "Independence Day" aliens create a good story, I do not believe that any race would willfully with a clear conscience seek the destruction of another race.

Why are you telling us this? I really couldn't care less and I cannot see what it has to do with when most people are indoctrinated into the religion of their geopgraphy by trusted athority members as a children.

Do you seriously believe that none of the Germans who killed millions of Jews and Catholics in the death camps did so with a clear conscience because they were brought up in a society that said it was okay?

I have never made such a claim. You are all over the place.

Why did the Nazis lie about the true function of those camps? Why were so many German citizens who were told the truth after the war weep bitterly with sorrow at what their nation had done?

This way! Come back!

Is my morality at a higher state than others?

I have no reason to think so.

While it may be higher than those who teach such things as the murder of unbelievers I truly believe that everyone has a conscience that tells the right from wrong, unless they have so blackened it with evil that they have grown immune to its call. I do not believe that having a working conscience is a matter of geography.

We are right back to Muslim's being unitelligent then.
Copy/paste of your words: "As I said I believe that there is such a thing as "universal truths". That no matter where you go in the universe all intelligent people will hold them to be true. "

I think I explained what the words in the Bible which a translated as "hell" actually mean.

I do not trust that you know and do not consider you to be an authority.

Nor are those the only words which are mistranslated. The concept of "hell" as a place for eternal punishment for sin did not become so popular until the 1820's with the Protestant religious revival.

Got it, so all the eternal punishment claims in the gospels and wailing and gnashing of teeth, which were not written in the 1800's. is just invention in the Bible, because you say so. I trust you less and less.

While some religions know this it has been so engrained into the psyche of people that it would prove difficult to eradicate. But its eradication must occur because that concept is so alien to the teachings of Christ. I did search for the truth. And when I say that I saw Catholicism as the greatest example of truth I did not say that I agree with everything which the Church teaches. There are minor issues that I see as false, and despite the history of the Church and the evil which have been done by those who claim to be Catholic in various times, I believe that they have preserved to this day the teachings of love of all taught by Christ to the greatest degree. Nor do I claim to have all the answers. What is the true nature of the "Trinity"? I haven't a clue... nor does anyone else. I accept it as true because Jesus spoke of it and I have grown to trust what He has said. What is the true nature of "hell" and does it actually exist? I don't know for certain. I just know by logic that it cannot be a place of eternal punishment for sin. Should the Church completely accept gays? While the Catholic Church does to an extent I believe that this is one of the points they are missing on and there should be full acceptance. I think that homosexuals are just as capable of living in true love as heterosexuals are. But your list (and I am certain there are many more) are your attempt to find a reason NOT to believe in God because none of the things you mentioned are actually about God Himself but rather side-issues confusing to man.[/color]

It seems you are just unwilling to have an honest discussion. Tip, when responding to posts, please look for question marks and try to answer those questions. I'm left here wondering if you hit your head recently as nothing you typed addressed what I said.

Readers, my points that were left unadressed for what we got above instead:
1) My point was that this is the time in a childs life when their religious parents are telling them that there is a god that loves them so much, as to send them to a heaven, yet hates another so much as to send them to a hell... or whaterver beliefs come with whatever religion is being pushed on to the children. It is happening at a point in the childs life where they will believe just about anything an authority tells them.

2) There is no mechanism to know what is truth and what is distortion. This is why we have nearly 40,000 different denomination of Christianity.

Well, I left this thread for a while now, and then decided to peak back in. And yup, theists are no closer in demonstrating the Christian god. And judging from the response you spent time on here, it seems quite frustrating. I feel for you!

[DaveD49]

Let me rephrase my question. Certainly I can think of scenarios where I would lie to my daughter when she was very young as well, but would you deliberately lie to your children about something which you b]believed[/b] was essential to their lives? For example would you ever tell them that it was okay to play with a loaded gun? Did you tell your children when they asked about God that "there is no God" or did you tell them the truth and say "I do not know?" If you said "There is no God" were you not doing the exact same indoctrination you accuse religious people of?

You can rephrae it all you want, but it still fails to address what you are to be responding to.
Again: "It is happening at a point in the childs life where they will believe just about anything an authority tells them."

Yes, to the loaded guns. I have spent time with both of them 'playing' with loaded guns. We started with air soft. They have played with .22's while supervised of course.
I don't tell my children that there are no gods.

Can you explain why you are dodging what I'm actually saying which has to do with when humans typically learn about the gods?

Wow... I cannot believe that you do not see what I am talking about. I am certain that you understand that it is every parents responsibility to educate their children on matters that that the parents see are important to their lives. You want to call it "indoctrination" because it has to do with religion, but it is not that at all. It is "education". A parent is proud when a child can recite the alphabet and write their own name. But if the child were in high school and that was still all they could do I am certain the parents would look on themselves as failures. A child receives an understanding of God that is appropriate to their age level and their ability to understand. As they grow they receive a more detailed and deeper understanding. That is the exact same thing that schools do with reading, writing and arithmetic. Would you accuse schools of "indoctrination" because you disagree with a child learning something at a young age? I am not dodging you question, I am answering it. I 100% disagree with that use of the word "indoctrination". Yes, it is totally right and proper for parents to teach their children about God or anything else that they find important stating at a young age. I would be literally be amazed if you could not see that. You say you taught your children about guns at a very young age. I certainly hope that their education was age appropriate, and I am certain that you said it was never right to point a loaded gun at another person, even in play. Were you "indoctrinating" them? Did you sign them up for the NRA at age 4? I doubt it. On another board I spoke to one gentleman who said he stopped believing in God at age 5. Was this true? Most likely NOT. He stopped believing in a child's understanding of God, which is very understandable. His comments on-line made it clear that he still clung to that childhood understanding by his constant use of referring to God as a "giant man in the sky" just as you often use the phrase "Which god?" when you should know by now that virtually all religions accept that there can be one and only one Supreme Being and He is the God of everyone. There is no such thing as a "Muslim god" or a "Christian god" But in the case of the gentleman I spoke of I place the failure on the parents who apparently did not continue to give him an on-going age-appropriate understanding.

D: That may be true from a 21st Century perspective, but there is no way in the world that a person from 3500 years ago would think that.

C.B.: Then you are just being silly. Of course a person from 3500 years ago could strive to not accept beliefs uncritically. What an odd claim you made.

First off, I believe that I was speaking about science at that point. Nor did I say that a person from 3500 years ago would "strive to accept beliefs uncritically". You said that. And you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that I am advocating that. A good portion of my life has been the critical examination of my beliefs. It is a necessary step in everyone's life if they are to become YOUR beliefs rather than the "Faith of Our Fathers". What happens most of the time is that many people pull the plug too quickly. They arrive at the point where they say "I do not believe this" for the wrong reasons, but then never examine it more closely.

C.B.: So if it is not a geography thing, you seem to be suggesting that you are just better or more moral then those that are born in a part of the world where such a belief is not so alien to them. What makes you inherently more moral then those born where such beliefs are not so alien? I would have thought it a geography thing, but you argue otherwise.

Now that most certainly IS silly. Stop twisting my words to fit into your agenda. I said nothing like that nor implied that I was more moral than anyone else. I was referring to the existence of the conscience in all of us. It is because of the conscience, which I believe is the Spirit of God talking to us, that Jesus said that everyone knows what is right and wrong.

D: As I said I believe that there is such a thing as "universal truths". That no matter where you go in the universe all intelligent people will hold them to be true.

C.B.: So Muslims are not intelligent. You sure you want to make that claim?
Again, we were discussing the concept of killing someone because they didn't believe the same as you did. If this is a universal truth as you claim and only intelligent people would hold them as true, that informs us that you think Muslims are unintelligent for not seeing this universal truth that you make an empty claim about there being.

Once again you are twisting my words. I said nothing about the intelligence of anyone. I do believe that there are some who have so blackened their conscience with evil that they no longer even hear its call. That is not specific to any particular faith as examples of that can be found in all faiths or lack thereof.

D:While the "Independence Day" aliens create a good story, I do not believe that any race would willfully with a clear conscience seek the destruction of another race.

C.B.: Why are you telling us this? I really couldn't care less and I cannot see what it has to do with when most people are indoctrinated into the religion of their geopgraphy by trusted athority members as a children.

Do you seriously believe that none of the Germans who killed millions of Jews and Catholics in the death camps did so with a clear conscience because they were brought up in a society that said it was okay?

C.B.: I have never made such a claim. You are all over the place.

I never said you did. I was using "Independence Day" and the Germans as an example of what I was talking about. I believe every intelligent living being has a conscience and though I cannot prove it I believe that there are some truths that are held as truth by all. Murder is among them.

D: Why did the Nazis lie about the true function of those camps? Why were so many German citizens who were told the truth after the war weep bitterly with sorrow at what their nation had done?

C.B.: This way! Come back!

??????

D: Is my morality at a higher state than others?

C.B.: I have no reason to think so.

D: While it may be higher than those who teach such things as the murder of unbelievers I truly believe that everyone has a conscience that tells the right from wrong, unless they have so blackened it with evil that they have grown immune to its call. I do not believe that having a working conscience is a matter of geography.

C.B.: We are right back to Muslim's being unitelligent then.
Copy/paste of your words: "As I said I believe that there is such a thing as "universal truths". That no matter where you go in the universe all intelligent people will hold them to be true. "

Once again, not what I said at all. Some extremely intelligent people have been mass-murderers. It has nothing to do with what their faith is but rather how well their conscience is working.

D: I think I explained what the words in the Bible which a translated as "hell" actually mean.

C.B.: I do not trust that you know and do not consider you to be an authority.

That is 100% up to you, but I did give the correct definitions of "Gehenna" and "Hades" (or "Sheol"). Was your attitude in school that you did not believe anything they said because you did not look on them as an "authority"? Am I an "authority" on all Biblical matters? No. But I am educated in a number of them.

D: Nor are those the only words which are mistranslated. The concept of "hell" as a place for eternal punishment for sin did not become so popular until the 1820's with the Protestant religious revival.

C.B.: Got it, so all the eternal punishment claims in the gospels and wailing and gnashing of teeth, which were not written in the 1800's. is just invention in the Bible, because you say so. I trust you less and less.

Not what I said. Hell may exist in some form, maybe as a separation from all love which stems from God or perhaps the true death of the soul. zin either case there would be figuratively the "weeping and gnashing of teeth". I just said I do not believe it to be a place for "eternal punishment for sin". And, yes, I pointed to how the words translated as "hell" have been mistranslated.

D: While some religions know this it has been so engrained into the psyche of people that it would prove difficult to eradicate. But its eradication must occur because that concept is so alien to the teachings of Christ. I did search for the truth. And when I say that I saw Catholicism as the greatest example of truth I did not say that I agree with everything which the Church teaches. There are minor issues that I see as false, and despite the history of the Church and the evil which have been done by those who claim to be Catholic in various times, I believe that they have preserved to this day the teachings of love of all taught by Christ to the greatest degree. Nor do I claim to have all the answers. What is the true nature of the "Trinity"? I haven't a clue... nor does anyone else. I accept it as true because Jesus spoke of it and I have grown to trust what He has said. What is the true nature of "hell" and does it actually exist? I don't know for certain. I just know by logic that it cannot be a place of eternal punishment for sin. Should the Church completely accept gays? While the Catholic Church does to an extent I believe that this is one of the points they are missing on and there should be full acceptance. I think that homosexuals are just as capable of living in true love as heterosexuals are. But your list (and I am certain there are many more) are your attempt to find a reason NOT to believe in God because none of the things you mentioned are actually about God Himself but rather side-issues confusing to man.[/color]

C.B.: It seems you are just unwilling to have an honest discussion. Tip, when responding to posts, please look for question marks and try to answer those questions. I'm left here wondering if you hit your head recently as nothing you typed addressed what I said.

I am terribly sorry that you failed to understand what I wrote but I did reply to what you said, in my mind (damaged though you say it is) quite clearly.

C.B.: Readers, my points that were left unadressed for what we got above instead:
1) My point was that this is the time in a childs life when their religious parents are telling them that there is a god that loves them so much, as to send them to a heaven, yet hates another so much as to send them to a hell... or whaterver beliefs come with whatever religion is being pushed on to the children. It is happening at a point in the childs life where they will believe just about anything an authority tells them.

2) There is no mechanism to know what is truth and what is distortion. This is why we have nearly 40,000 different denomination of Christianity.

1) Answered several times. You just want to call education "indoctrination" and want parents to cease from teaching their children about religion. Sorry. That is not going to happen nor does anyone have the right to try to force them to stop. In the United States, despite what one political party is seemingly trying to create, we still do not yet live in a totalitarian state.

2) There is a mechanism to know truth from distortion, and that is a person's conscience. Often it requires patient listening and thought. Unfortunately there are many people who find that difficult.

[Clownboat]

1) Answered several times. You just want to call education "indoctrination"

Quite the opposite clearly. I want you to acknowledge the difference between education and indoctrination.
It is due to education that we know donkeys can't talk, or that a person cannot live in the belly of a fish/whale for days on end, or that dead and liquefied corpses don't reanimate to life.

People believe such things because of indoctrination. Something that is mostly done when a person is young and has an impressionable mind.

Please apologize for your gross misunderstanding of the English language and your false accusations about me wanting to call education indoctrination.

and want parents to cease from teaching their children about religion.

How can you get so much wrong?
I note the religions persist in a geographic manner and that parents indoctrinate their children to believe in flying horses or what have you when the children are young and impressionable.
You could say that I would seek to end indoctrination, sure. Especially the forms of it that could be construed as child abuse, but we should all learn about religions as they are a real thing on this planet.

2) There is a mechanism to know truth from distortion, and that is a person's conscience.

I must reject your proposed mechanism as a person's conscience does not inform us as to what is truth compared to what is distortion. What an odd claim you have imagined.

Why do you think indoctrination is the tool we use when convincing children that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse? Do you not think that if we analyze this claim and consider it critically that we might arrive at the educated position that horses can't fly?

Again, horses can fly and donkeys can talk due to indoctrination. An education frees us from such indoctrinated beliefs. I do not want to conflate the two.

[DaveD49]

1) Answered several times. You just want to call education "indoctrination"

Quite the opposite clearly. I want you to acknowledge the difference between education and indoctrination.
It is due to education that we know donkeys can't talk, or that a person cannot live in the belly of a fish/whale for days on end, or that dead and liquefied corpses don't reanimate to life.

People believe such things because of indoctrination. Something that is mostly done when a person is young and has an impressionable mind.

Please apologize for your gross misunderstanding of the English language and your false accusations about me wanting to call education indoctrination.

and want parents to cease from teaching their children about religion.

How can you get so much wrong?
I note the religions persist in a geographic manner and that parents indoctrinate their children to believe in flying horses or what have you when the children are young and impressionable.
You could say that I would seek to end indoctrination, sure. Especially the forms of it that could be construed as child abuse, but we should all learn about religions as they are a real thing on this planet.

2) There is a mechanism to know truth from distortion, and that is a person's conscience.

I must reject your proposed mechanism as a person's conscience does not inform us as to what is truth compared to what is distortion. What an odd claim you have imagined.

Why do you think indoctrination is the tool we use when convincing children that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse? Do you not think that if we analyze this claim and consider it critically that we might arrive at the educated position that horses can't fly?

Again, horses can fly and donkeys can talk due to indoctrination. An education frees us from such indoctrinated beliefs. I do not want to conflate the two.

Wow. Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I reject your notion that it is "indoctrination"; you reject my notion that it is "education". Your close-mindedness leaves no room for the talking about the Divine whatsoever. I also believe that this is the second or third time you have worked in an insult into your statements to me. That has no place in any forum that is supposed to be an intelligent discussion. If your insults are some sort of revenge for something I may have said that you considered demeaning then I most certainly do apologize for that. You also have brought up things from the Bible such as talking donkeys, and a person living in a fish which I have never mentioned. You give yourself credit for realizing that story of Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse is false, but assume that my education is lacking because the Bible contains stories, which I never mentioned, that are likewise false.

[Clownboat]

Wow. Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I reject your notion that it is "indoctrination"; you reject my notion that it is "education".

Copy/paste: "It is due to education that we know donkeys can't talk, or that a person cannot live in the belly of a fish/whale for days on end, or that dead and liquefied corpses don't reanimate to life.

People believe such things because of indoctrination. Something that is mostly done when a person is young and has an impressionable mind."

That you reject that an education informs us that donkeys can't talk or that liquefied bodies can't reanimate is something you are going to have to own up to. People believe such things not due to an education, but due to being indoctrinated into having such a belief.

Your close-mindedness leaves no room for the talking about the Divine whatsoever.

And yet, here I am on a Christian debate site. Your own words show you to be incorrect.

I also believe that this is the second or third time you have worked in an insult into your statements to me.

Don't forget to play the victim card.

That has no place in any forum that is supposed to be an intelligent discussion.

It's not intelligent to claim that an education informs us that liquefied corpses can reanimate back to life. These beliefs are geographical and mostly stem from indoctrination (not education) at an early age.

If your insults are some sort of revenge for something I may have said that you considered demeaning then I most certainly do apologize for that.

You have nothing to apologize for that I can think of. My feelings are not hurt.

You also have brought up things from the Bible such as talking donkeys, and a person living in a fish which I have never mentioned.

Derp! There still in the Bible whether you bring them up or not.

You give yourself credit for realizing that story of Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse is false,

Nope, I noted that it is generally indoctrination at a young age where such a beliefs gets enforced. It is not an education that informs us that Mohammed flew on a winged horse, but indoctrination. Who afterall would accept the belief that horses can fly, donkeys can talk or that liquefied corpses can reanimate due to an education?

but assume that my education is lacking because the Bible contains stories, which I never mentioned, that are likewise false.

I do not make assumptions about your education. I do note that the more educated the general public is, the less likely they are to be religious though. Why would you think that this is?

[TRANSPONDER]

Education or indoctrination. Indeed. It's true that education id downloading what is believed by those in charge rather than teach people to think. But it's like I've said here 'we have to credit that science has the facts and science denial is invalid, and it is not legitimate to demand we atheists do the research all over again'. Or words to that effect.

Of course anything can be questioned; scientists do it all the time. ("Science is always changing its' mind") But the methopd is based in research, question, validation and repeat, and it is accepted all over the world; one science. Religions are all different.

The fact is that religion is a matter of faith and not facts. The debates we have here are about the factual backup of religious claims and they do not cut the mustard. I won't go into the ducking, diving, tap -dancing, evasion, red herrings and misdirection that are the way these defenders of the Faith end up but Faith is where they do end up. And Faith is not a good reason to believe anything.

Bottom line, (it's the lines I'm obsessed with, not the bottoms). Faith in the mental downloading of science (read 'legitimate curriculum) is valid, but downloading Faithbased claims not validated by science (unless it is known human constructs like art, music and literature) other than as an impartial study of those claims (e.g Bible reading in class requires reading of the other Holy Books, too) is indoctrination, whether in home, school work or any instrument of Dogma. There is good reason why one is called education and the other indoctrination. One is valid on evidence and the other one believed and taught in spite of it.

[DaveD49]

Wow. Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I reject your notion that it is "indoctrination"; you reject my notion that it is "education".

Copy/paste: "It is due to education that we know donkeys can't talk, or that a person cannot live in the belly of a fish/whale for days on end, or that dead and liquefied corpses don't reanimate to life.

People believe such things because of indoctrination. Something that is mostly done when a person is young and has an impressionable mind."

That you reject that an education informs us that donkeys can't talk or that liquefied bodies can't reanimate is something you are going to have to own up to. People believe such things not due to an education, but due to being indoctrinated into having such a belief.

Your close-mindedness leaves no room for the talking about the Divine whatsoever.

And yet, here I am on a Christian debate site. Your own words show you to be incorrect.

I also believe that this is the second or third time you have worked in an insult into your statements to me.

Don't forget to play the victim card.

That has no place in any forum that is supposed to be an intelligent discussion.

It's not intelligent to claim that an education informs us that liquefied corpses can reanimate back to life. These beliefs are geographical and mostly stem from indoctrination (not education) at an early age.

If your insults are some sort of revenge for something I may have said that you considered demeaning then I most certainly do apologize for that.

You have nothing to apologize for that I can think of. My feelings are not hurt.

You also have brought up things from the Bible such as talking donkeys, and a person living in a fish which I have never mentioned.

Derp! There still in the Bible whether you bring them up or not.

You give yourself credit for realizing that story of Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse is false,

Nope, I noted that it is generally indoctrination at a young age where such a beliefs gets enforced. It is not an education that informs us that Mohammed flew on a winged horse, but indoctrination. Who afterall would accept the belief that horses can fly, donkeys can talk or that liquefied corpses can reanimate due to an education?

but assume that my education is lacking because the Bible contains stories, which I never mentioned, that are likewise false.

I do not make assumptions about your education. I do note that the more educated the general public is, the less likely they are to be religious though. Why would you think that this is?

The original question on this post was to do with showing evidence for God. That I am doing on other posts as it would be too much for one post to handle. You apparently want to talk about talking donkeys and a man living in a big fish, even though that point was never brought up by me, not did I make any reference to the Bible being inerrant, nor to I believe it is. So you are just making up "my beliefs" and tossing them out as if I had actually said them. The discussion on whether teaching religious values if "indoctrination" as you say or "education" as I aver is in a loop where you keep on repeating the same things. Plus the fact that you keep on working in insults. That is why I said that we must agree to disagree. This is the last post I will make to you on this subject.

[DaveD49]

Education or indoctrination. Indeed. It's true that education id downloading what is believed by those in charge rather than teach people to think. But it's like I've said here 'we have to credit that science has the facts and science denial is invalid, and it is not legitimate to demand we atheists do the research all over again'. Or words to that effect.

Of course anything can be questioned; scientists do it all the time. ("Science is always changing its' mind") But the methopd is based in research, question, validation and repeat, and it is accepted all over the world; one science. Religions are all different.

The fact is that religion is a matter of faith and not facts. The debates we have here are about the factual backup of religious claims and they do not cut the mustard. I won't go into the ducking, diving, tap -dancing, evasion, red herrings and misdirection that are the way these defenders of the Faith end up but Faith is where they do end up. And Faith is not a good reason to believe anything.

Bottom line, (it's the lines I'm obsessed with, not the bottoms). Faith in the mental downloading of science (read 'legitimate curriculum) is valid, but downloading Faithbased claims not validated by science (unless it is known human constructs like art, music and literature) other than as an impartial study of those claims (e.g Bible reading in class requires reading of the other Holy Books, too) is indoctrination, whether in home, school work or any instrument of Dogma. There is good reason why one is called education and the other indoctrination. One is valid on evidence and the other one believed and taught in spite of it.

Sorry Transponder, but I think your thinking on that matter is a bit flawed, but I understand that it is from your perspective. Science and faith are completely different arenas. Science is a valuable tool because it tells us what we need to know about the universe. It tells us how it works. However there is where it is limited. It can tell us nothing with any degree of certainty about what lies beyond. Certainly it can guess that there are different dimensions or different universes, they may even have some small facts that suggest them. But just as atheists constantly ask for proof of God, science cannot prove their claims in things that are extra-universal.

Faith is a person's acknowledgement that something does indeed exist beyond the realm of science. It can never be proved by science. But it has most certainly been experienced by many, many people of all faiths. I am speaking about personal encounters with the Divine. There is no reason that you would ever believe anyone had such a personal encounter because it is beyond your experience. But if you ask those who have experienced it you will hear them say that it was the most transformative part of their lives. So when you say that "it is not fact-based" you are totally wrong. At best all you can say that it is not based on any facts in my personal experiences. Faith is based on facts that you or science knows absolutely nothing about. But the funny thing is that science has the strange habit of picking up more and more tidbits of information that keep on affirming faith. It was such discoveries that led Robert Jastrow, an agnostic American astronomer, planetary physicist and NASA scientist to say: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers. Recognize this, IF God does indeed exist, and is responsible in some way for the origins of the universe, then He is also responsible for the science by which it runs. You HAVE TO dismiss such things as miracles and other such things because they do not fit within you agenda. Once again, just because you have not experienced something does not mean that others have not as well.

So when a faith-based person has experienced something which he/she has found to be true, they are NOT "indoctrinating" their children but telling them what they believe; they are educating them. We spoke at one point about the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima in 1918. I personally spoke with the grandson of one of the persons who were actually there and was told about it by his grandfather. Second-hand information to be sure, but the grandson spoke with the same ardent speech that I am certain that his grandfather had told it to him.

[Diagoras]

Faith is based on facts that you or science knows absolutely nothing about.

<bolding mine>

Incorrect. Faith is belief in something without evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #538]


Sorry, wrong,and wrong for all the uusual reasons - putting a faithclaim as the default. And of course misrepresenting the Other side to make it stick.

Science, skepticism and atheism does NOT deny or ignore the unknowns beyond. They are the places we want to explore. Theists don't because they reckon they know already on Faith.

I needn't labour the point but this is the claim I have always made writ large in your post: that Theists of a kind ,anyway, believe that God is downloading True "Facts" into their heads, and if science disagrees, well science is either wrong, or the God is in a gap beyond. Or both. Do you see it?I t is a belief in the unvalidated and often demonstrably wrong, and that's why it should not be taught in a society where science has made its' case. It is actually dubious that parents should teach their children the unverified as though it was fact, but we can't do anything about that. We can only put the other side in education, which is why the struggle for control of education is a big one.