Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
This topic has moved on a bit since I was last able to comment. Apologies if what I say is no longer relevant.
Have no fear, my friend. One reason I started this thread, which I stated at the first, was so no one could claim thread drift or relevance. It's all relevant as long as it deals with religion or atheism, preferably both in comparison.

Responding to Thorne's comments about Moses, it's quite remarkable that his first reaction is to call a non-existent person a lunatic rather than a fiction.
If you were describing the novel, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and talked about Randle Patrick McMurphy, the lead character, would you need to tell anyone that he was a fiction? No, because most people would know that the book was fiction. You would, however, describe him as some sort of lunatic or other.

As for Pharoah's magicians' "tricks", they would have been skillful legerdemain, but they would not have been miracles. Moses's snake really was the rod transformed; the water did become blood, not simply polluted. Science could explain the trickery, not the marvels performed by Moses.
Assuming that they WERE marvels and not a story made up to illustrate a point of religious belief. One would expect that, if all of the miracles and plagues which were inflicted upon Egypt by Moses had truly occurred there would be SOME mention of SOME of them at the appropriate time. Yet, despite fanatical searching by religious archeologists, not ONE of these has been confirmed.

You doubt his word as a lying, mentally disturbed non-entity. But you have no faith. The faithful have no trouble in believing it and see no reason why they shouldn't.
I do understand that, MMI, believe me. Where I have difficulty is understanding why people, even some scientists, would accept these things purely on faith. To me it makes no sense.

You ask (concerning people with no opinion about the existence of gods), "What of the person who says, "I have not seen any evidence that it is so, so I do not believe it is so."

That man also does not believe in unproved scientific postulations, and certainly does not prefer one unfounded opinion against another, no matter how plausible other people think one of those opinions is and how preposterous the other
I agree completely, unless you are asking for absolute proof. In science there are no absolute proofs, only evidence compounded upon evidence which all points to a probable truth.

And I think you mean scientific theories, not postulates. A postulate is a proposal which is assumed to be true as a basis for the formation of a logical chain of events. These usually occur in mathematics, such as in geometry. Euclid proposed five postulates which he used as the foundation for geometry. All of the other rules of geometry must be proven in accordance with these postulates. (I don't think I'm explaining it well. It's been a long day.)

Some of those changes may be the result of irrelevant belief systems, but you have already admitted, science gets things wrong too. Where one religious belief does not work, a better one is sought.
The difference is that religious changes still involve invoking the untestable and unprovable. Scientific changes do not. Replacing the evil, death-dealing God of the Old Testament with the more loving God of the New Testament does nothing to prove the existence of either. In fact, if anything, it shows how man has made the gods in HIS image, rather than the reverse.

And finally,
... and so is the current scientific understanding of creation: at the moment of the Big Bang . . .
What clearer foundation of nothing can there be?
The point is that this is ONE explanation for what MIGHT have happened, based upon the observed results. No one claims that it is absolutely true, only that it is possible. WE DON'T KNOW. We may never know. How does one see beyond the beginning of time?

With the religious creation myths, whichever brand you prefer, the only answer for how did it start is, God did it! And they KNOW! They aren't searching for evidence to prove it, they aren't trying to devise other theories, they simply accept God without reservation.

So far as anyone can tell, atheism is no more correct than theism, and this will remain the case until god is revealed or a "natural" explanation for everything and beyond is found.
You make the same mistake here that I've been fighting all along: you assert, or at least imply, that atheism is a religious idea. It's not. It's simply saying, "I do not believe."

It is churlish to scorn the opinions of others which do not chime with one's own.
Not when those others are trying to force those opinions down your throat.

That is not to say both points of view should not be discussed, advocated and encouraged.
In their proper places: religion in the churches, science in the schools.

Quite the opposite, in fact, but the naturalists must understand that there can be no natural proof of the supernatural, while believers must modify their beliefs to accord with natural reality.
I agree, there can be no natural proof of the supernatural. And there can be no interaction between the supernatural and the natural, because once that happens, the supernatural becomes natural! It leaves a mark on the real world, one which can be seen, studied, learned from. Or, as is almost always the case, shown to be not supernatural at all, but only an unexpected natural phenomenon. (I say "almost" because there are, occasionally, some things which might not be explainable with the scientific understanding at the time. But there is also nothing that shows these things to be supernatural in origin.)

What theists need to understand is that science regards supernatural explanations as extraordinary claims, and thus they require extraordinary evidence. God did it just doesn't work.