Thanks for giving me your perspective on Atheists Strummy.
I think both sides Christian and Atheist use the same argument, basically that we aren't what you think we are. In some cases this is really true, in others it isn't. In some cases one side is trying to paint a picture of the other side that doesn't exist. If it happens to be Christianity we are talking about then IMO it comes down to a personal experience as well as a knowledge based approach. I mean, 8 year old kids can successfully become Christian with no prior knowledge of scripture and be just as Christian as a theologian. They might not be old enough to know what a Methodist or a Baptist is but that doesn't matter. The basic premise behind the belief and the acceptance therof is all that is required. I am glad it is this way. What if only gifted scientists could get there?
We agree on a few things, mainly that religion in and of itself can be a bad thing,although I think the atheist says it is always a bad thing and I would say that if directed correctly it isn't a bad thing. I don't see any harm in science. As some have said, science is the pillar with which we have made things better for millions of people. I see a trend for that to continue...I mean we now have Sonar X3, how cool is that ? Computer science, medical science, nano technology..the list goes on.
The thing about science though is that it is supposedly based on empirical evidence, but the empirical evidence can change over time as Ol Pal said science is a moving scale of sorts and what is empirical today might not be empirical tomorrow. I would say that if the purpose of science is to further mankind intellectually and if that is all we need then it could concievably replace the belief in a god if that were the only motive and agenda of mankind. The idea being that if we eventually become smart enough we won't need a god and god will effectively be replaced. This assumption is based on the idea that god is a smart person and we can become that smart eventually, and that the only reason we would ever need a god is for knowledge and for how it will benefit us.
My world view is much different. In my view we are created beings and will never attain that status. We think we have come far until we start to look at the complexity of even the smallest things in nature. I know what Dawkins says regarding his take on theories. I disagree with his thinking on the subject. It's either proven or its not. A theory is a theory even if there are numerous "empirical" discoveries surrounding a premise. I don't see any "crap science", what I see is the painful reach toward a solution to a problem that might not always be a good fit. These " painful reaches" are then used as practical explanations when we might not really have one. Both sides of the debate are doing these reaches.
While I agree that many Christians aren't very well trained in the finer points of the Bible ( we talk about 25% of the Bible 95% of the time). This isn't a prerequisite to entry into the faith and as such not all Christians are required to be theologians. Some Christians however ARE very well equipped to answer questions on the Bible but you may not like the answers. This is one reason why I am involved in some Apologetics work. If anyone claims to tell you they know it all I would run far away from them. This applies to Atheists as well. Did you ever notice how many of them seem to have it all figured out? Especially with regard to the Bible. I seldom ever run across one who will even entertain the idea that they might be wrong, even on a few points.
It's a lot like a murder trial where there are two sides approaching the jury. One side says that the person is a criminal. They have a lot of so called proof to back that idea up. Some have even argued that the criminal might not exist.A closer look at the "evidence" reveals a very one sided approach to the whole affair. What their "evidence" reveals are taking factual events and putting a spin on them to suit their agenda, which is to discredit the one they put on the stand and therefore make any acceptance of the Bible as a credible book look like only a fool would read and believe it, even though thousands of gifted minds have read, studied and accepted it. The evidence looks compelling because they bring out what sure look like contadictions, improbablitites, impossibilities etc. The lack of contextual approach, lack of logical inclusion of all evidence leads to postions that they think supports their argument.Many rely on the writings of people who have no credibility in the fields they write about. Emphasis on cultic extremes and historical wars supposedly fought in the name of God all seem to paint a picture that the world would have been better off without Christianity.
On the other side we have thousands that can daily attest to the reality of their experiences even though they went into it not knowing a lot about the Bible. We have scientists and theologians that can attest to the same thing from a position of knowledge. They have studied the entire character of God and determined that He is good and just, not cherry picked certain parts of the Bible to try and prove He is cruel and heartless. The complete study reveals a God who is good and who loves. Who doesn't want bad for you in any way shape or form.
I'm probably tempting the TOS here. Sorry if I am. I have a hard time with people who insist the Bible is bunk. I at the very least feel compelled to give another perspective in this....can't let that one slide.