re: I want to hear from the Agnostics. What will the secular world eventually evolve into?

quote:

---

So religion, in it's more genuine form, is a process that urges one towards love and selflessness and empathy and humility.

---

I would like to say that it saddens me that so many discount the possibility of a Spirit realm.

String theory posits 10 dimensions beyond the four that we can measure. Religion claims the existence of at least one additional realm.

Religion claims such a "place" on the basis of religious experience and eyewitness testimony. Science calms ten as a way of further explaining the workings of this physical universe.

What is the different? Why is one supposition more credible than the next?

In fact we understand very little about existence. And it seems all this skepticism is just a way of declaring that the very little we know is all there is.

quote:

---

Why don't you want to marry her?
Just curious, any selfishness at play?

---

I am married to her but I lived with her for a year before we got engaged. The priest was appalled when we told him we were living together even though we were getting married in the church. I just and roll my eyes at these dinosaurs.

IMHO, Christianity has been in control for quite some time. It's just recently that they are being challenged.

quote:

---

As an atheist, I am saying that I haven’t heard a logical reason to believe in any God.
I am more than willing to hear evidence, claims are all I’ve gotten so far

---

5 Ways. This was covered a few centuries ago most recently.

I am wholly unimpressed and unconvinced

I wish people would look more deeply into biblical scholarship beyond the latest sensationalism of Bart Ehrman.

There is very credible scholarly works that place the gospels within 50 years of the the Crucifixion of Christ and the epistles within 30.

There are thousands of of fragments of source materials from wide ranging geographical areas. Rather than being contradictory, they are are very much consistent with one another.

Even Ehrman states, when he is among scholarly peers, that the differences are subtle and taken together would not change basic Christian theology as passed down to any significant degree whatsoever.

Now, when he writes his books for popular consumption, he spins it differently.

Regardless, many people believe the notion that the bible has been dramatically altered in ways that profoundly change the meaning. We've all heard the analogy of the telephone game which implies that the life of Christ was passed along verbally from generation to generation, with facts being distorted and embelished along the way. But in fact, the time involved was much shorter and the verbal traditions much more meticulously maintained until put on parchment. Christ was not legend, and his life is more well documented than any of his contemporaries. This is true, even if you apply the exact same standards as you would to historians of long ago.

Many in the early christian church knew eye witnesses personally and the early worship prior to the existence of the bible is consistent with our modern worship and belief system.

And in fact, the books of the bible were not arbitrarily cherry picked. Rather, extra credibility was placed on the sources that were closer to the life of Christ and more widely substantiated.

Now none of this confirms Christ's divinity. That is a question of faith. But we do know that Paul put the number of witnesses to the risen Christ at 500, many still living at the time the epistles were written.

So, the idea that it is all an outlandish fable distorts reality. It is the reporting of history and eye witness testimony of alleged historic events.

We can argue over the accuracy of the reporting based on the improbability of it all if we want. But that doesn't change the fact that there were many persons involved who believed Jesus to be the Christ, and to have risen from the dead. What these people saw, or thought they saw, had such a powerful effect on them that it re-shaped our world.

quote:

---

eventually evolve into

---

It cannot "evolve". It only ever devolves into nihilism.

Appeal to Common Belief

argumentum ad populum

(also known as: appeal to accepted belief, appeal to democracy, appeal to widespread belief, appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to general belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the number, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum consensus gentium, appeal to the mob, appeal to the gallery, consensus gentium, mob appeal, social conformance, value of community, vox populi)

Description: When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.

This is your argument

Apologetic nonsense