We've all heard the saying "ignorance is bliss".  You're on the money when you say the majority of people who call themselves christians are rather ignorant about their religion.  They know what they're told and it makes them happy, but they never put in any time and research even though under their false assumptions it would make them happier.  More often than not it makes them unhappy when the time and research is done so they stop or return to the ignorance.

It's funny because the new episode of the Infidel Guy podcast had our beloved St. Michael on, man that guy is a twit, anyway... he was claiming the same thing, documented miracles. What constitues as a miracle is pretty sad nowadays. No walking on water or raising people from the dead. If someone disease goesn into remission after say, praying to the pope, that is a miracle... as long as it doesn't come back. If it does come back that is just god's will. No limb regeneration or anything. How insanely silly.

Yes, I mentioned the part about no limb regeneration.  I love that site about god hating amputees.  It shows how utterly without merit claims of the miraculous are.  Miracles define themselves out of existence. 

BTW <---new internet sin (hehe), I love that Carl Sagan quote on your sig. 

Bad Iruka.  Bad.  Bad!!!  You'll go to hell in a handbasket for that! 

The borders near home and the dymocks near work both have 2/3rds of the atheism/freethinking/humanist section taken up with copies of The God Delusion.  Thank FSM for online ordering with delivery to work. 

 ignorance in a faith is not proof of an ignorant faith. If that were true niether science or God would exsist.

The "gift of faith is not supposed to be a blind adherence to religiuos or scientific dogma at the expence of rational thought. It is no gift to close your mind and claim that something is true just because it was found in a text book or the Bible. Neither science or religion would survive that type of process.

Common practice of the reigious and scientific is making a hypothesis to explain observations. The direction taken is the problem, not the process. Scientific knowlege aginst God's exsistance is science taking over areas originally considered God's territory. That is a proof of man's ignorance to the world around him.

The question  rightous have to ask themselves Is God disappearing or is the uncertainty we need a God to explain deminishing?

Ask your hairdresser how to cut hair and you will get a better answer.

The "gift of faith is not supposed to be a blind adherence to religiuos or scientific dogma at the expence of rational thought

The term scientific dogma is definitionally incoherent. It is like saying cold fire or Catholic virgin alter boy. Rational thought is the philosophical basis behind scientific induction (largely thanks to the atheization of scientific philosophy post-Enlightenment).

 Common practice of the reigious and scientific is making a hypothesis to explain observations.

Since when does religion abide by this process?

 Scientific knowlege aginst God's exsistance is science taking over areas originally considered God's territory. That is a proof of man's ignorance to the world around him.

That is epistemilogically inocherent. Science is a tool which provides natural explanations for natural phenomenon. There is no meaningful ontology for supernatural, so God's territory will remain safe, seeing as there is none of it.

 The question  rightous have to ask themselves Is God disappearing or is the uncertainty we need a God to explain deminishing?

The religious are reightous now? How odd. The latter is correct. God sits in the gaps. However, there are some good deductive arguments against the existence of God. Have a look at my thread called the information/matter conjecture is a crisis for the existence of God.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I guess for him it is virgin births and miracles, maybe he should talk to his wife. 

My use of the word "Dogma" is a bit of artistic license to direct a point of discussion. Dogmra signifies the belief in a writting that carries an opinion which seems true to the person.

A hypothosis is a guess based on accumulated knowlege (either right or wrong) and a point of view. Is the sunrise an act of God or is it a natural occurring event or did God set this natural occurring event into motion... Neither side will truly win, the point of view will eliminate it. That thread is too long. I do appreciate the listing of an earlier thread. I am not aware of all past discusions.

To me, blind faith is the problem. Faith is not a problem but simply a level of ignorance, but ignorant is the nature of man. I will dismiss anyone of religious or scientific background who claims to have all the answers. As my hairdress siad "If you can't cut hair, you can't impress me. ( I really like it because it was said to a polotician.

I do not understand the "God of gaps" please give me the thread where that came from. I don't see God defined as a God of gaps until we can define ourselves as "man without gaps."

Quote: Just because it is written down doesn’t give it authoritarian privileges. People should come up with their own conclusions, be it good or bad, not from reading an ancient tome.  

I couldn’t agree with you more. The only problem is that I don’t have the time to retest every theory out there. Eventually we all have to take some information on “faith” or trust. Unfortunately that proves us all a bit ignorant and the worst part is we often trust in the people and writings that prove us right. Most of what I know is what I have read and the words I believe are that which best fit my preconceived notions. When doing research most people will want to follow their path first. It is our nature.  

Quote: In fact, a hypothesis is an educated guess based on an observation. Hmm, the apple falls to the ground; there must be some underlying force acting on it to make it fall. i.e. gravity.  

I don’t have to drop an apple to believe in gravity, nor will I use buoyancy to disprove it. I take medication when I feel bad because I have faith in my doctor and I know it isn’t demons attacking me. I don’t disagree with science because it has been wrong in the past. I do believe that facts remain the same while theories can and often do change and  science is about beliefs based on theories in progress. A scientific hypothesis can change because a persons initial point of view was incorrect. 

Quote:This is more of a deist's point of view, that "god" created everything but then stepped back to let it happen. I think that this is just lazy thinking. It is taking all of the moral issues out of the equation but you still identify with xtianity. Look to science and logic if you want to think like this.  

My logic also tells me that I can not control cause and effect in a large scale. Logic tells me that if there were a God he would have the intelligence to understand “cause and effect” analysis. The existence of "cause and effect relationships" is what makes experimental science possible. I really hope that any God would be smarter than me. 

Quote: Well, for one, where did all the dinosaurs go? Why are there fossils? Why does evolution happen? It doesn’t say that it does in the bible...so...the bible is still valid?  

I am not in the Bible either, but I am pretty sure I am here. I personally can not see the relevance of these questions as an opposition to the Bible. 

Quote:

Of course my hairdresser needs to know how to cut hair; however, if she is going to live her life based upon a book, she should at least have some idea of what is in that book.  Her responsibility to learn doesn't end at cutting, coloring and styling hair. 

That is a sad and true statement. Many people are simply following a group and have only some idea of their faith. Only people who are worse is the ones who think they know what it says and try to teach a limited view. I am no theologin but I know the Bible isn't the only source of knowlege, even the Bible says that.