The majority of the bible, then.
Sure, if you interpret it in a way that doesn't make any sense.
Right. And the basis (and evidence) for this is...?
Really? Any scholarly source will tell you that eastern and western mindsets and literary styles are drastically different. Eastern writings are heavily symbolic, western is logical, rational, and literal. Even a superficial reading of the Bible shows you that the writers did not have Catholic priests in mind as their readers. In fact, many of the epistles tell you who they are addressed to. The writings of the ante-nicean fathers show a clear doctrinal evolution, between 60-300 AD, AWAY from what Christ taught and towards what we would now call Catholicism.
And "immovable" doesn't mean fixed?
It can, but again, you're pushing your own interpretation instead of considering all possibilities. You're assuming it means fixed in space, rather than fixed to a set course of motion.
I have to be honest, I'm not going to look at those. I assume they just support the scriptures you cited, but again, you are insisting on a particular interpretation instead of being open to new options. To be fair, I'm doing that too, so I wonder if this discussion is pointless. You're arguing from the assumption that the Bible is wrong, and I'm arguing from the assumption that the Bible is right. So we're both a bit close-minded and stubborn, and that, unfortunately, is not conducive to rational thought.
No, I said that the use was not necessary. Do try to read the context.
I understand that, I'm just disagreeing. It's not that the use is unnecessary, it's that for their intended audience, they didn't need to clarify.
Your own "definition" of religion?
Almost every denomination has its own definition. There's no reason for you to assume I've just pulled this out of a hat. Again, look at every possibility before coming to a conclusion. Isn't that one thing science teaches us to do?
Strawman. That isn't what I claimed at all.
You're not saying that religion, as a whole, was proven wrong because one denomination was shown to be incorrect, even when not all religions, or even all Christian groups, held that false belief? Again, if you're saying that A religion was proven wrong, rather than that RELIGION in general was proven wrong, then I agree. But to say that belief in God, in general, is unwise because one group with some silly ideas about astronomy were incorrect seems like a leap to me.
And again you're failing to read. You claimed that science confirms what religion taught for centuries. I simply gave an example of where this isn't so. And I'm sure you can come up with others.
What, specifically, did YOU have in mind as an example where science HAS confirmed religious teachings?
What would you say the ratio is? (Confirmations/ refutations).
Well, Keep in mind that I'm calling a religion a correspondence between God and His children. I know that makes the assumption that there is in fact a God to correspond with us, but I am a theist, so that's just par for the course, unfortunately.
So by that definition, I don't think that religion, as a whole, has been definitively refuted. After all, if it had, there'd be no theists. It hasn't always been confirmed, though. Some results are inconclusive, or we look forward to what science may show us in the future to answer questions and issues not yet confirmed. I actually don't think science has the power to refute religion as a whole. No matter what scientific fact you find, there's always going to be a denomination that has never held that belief. Science can keep disproving individual denominations until there's none left though, but I don't think it's gotten to that point. I think philosophy is better equipped to handle religion in general. Questions like the problem of evil, or the omniscience/free will issue, strike at much larger groups of denominations.
However, if we define a religion as any group of like-minded theologians, then I agree with you entirely. A good percentage of these denominations have been shown to be clearly false.
This may sound elitist and some other theists here may rail against the idea, but I think any honest theist will say the same. We all think our denomination is "correct" and others are not. Even those who believe that "any path can lead you to God", believe that that idea is "correct", and other denominations who do not believe that are not.
What do I have in mind for instances when science confirms religion? Well, you can wait for me to hit 20 posts and I'll stick a link on here, or I can send it to you. I'd rather post it here, though, so it doesn't seem like I'm trying to be sneaky. Or I could do both so you don't have to wait.
