What you have stated is irrelevant and perfectly matches the last bucketful of lying BS you threw. Can I suppose that you have evidence of your claim that science supports theism? Or is this just another bucket of BS? I have provided ample examples and links to prove your claim to be nothing more than wishful thinking and I really cannot be bothered trawling thought it all again just to knock you off your pedestal. Needless to say around 7% of scientist support your claim the remaining 93% DONT.<quoted text>
I think I have previously stated that science doesn't support atheism but it rather suppose theism, so far all you argued was why do people believe ..!!! but what I am trying to tell you is that WHY people came to this understanding of religions beliefs and the existence of god doesn't necessarily disprove the existence of a creator, of course you can prove that such reasons are not good ones but at the same time the same belief may be true, for instance you can say that science may explain how beauty is perceived by individuals but of course cannot explain why people appreciate beauty in the first place ..!!
People came to religious belief because of the misunderstanding, misinterpretation,,misrepresen tation and ignorance of reality, it was a development of language. A case of I dont understand but that preacher in the next valley has some words that make the search for truth irrelevant
The understanding of neuroscience and the mental process is progressing rapidly, the advent of the MRI can physically measure how beauty or love or hate or any other emotion are realised.
Of course I admit that there are things that cannot be explained by science. But you should admit that science is working toward an understanding despite indignant and incredulous we dont understand so we guess that our god dun it and fook what science is working towards. Closely followed by We cannot condone the findings of science because it contradicts what a bunch of bronze age goat herders said
This is a kind of question that is explained by morality, without which there would be no civilisation and hence no need to advance the languages that give rise to any god belief.
Contrary to your claim, religions in general do not fit that goal to the extent that it does not and cannot account for humanity, for personality and any variation of religious belief results in hatred and retribution and reprisal against the transgressor, and so genocides happen.
And despite your many many claims that the quran answers the questions of life and that the quoran promotes science you have never, ever actually provided evidence for those claims.
Did you take lessons in deliberate misrepresentation? Or is it something that comes natural to fundy godbots? I am arguing that belief in magic and dreams is irrelevant.
The quran attempts to explain many things using earlier knowledge and in many of those attempts modern knowledge has left it floundering, in the remainder it was talking total bollocks. The claims on embryology were knows about 1000 years before Mo was a twinkle in his dads eye. The Qoran's view of embryo development are based on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and is most probably lifted directly from the work of Galen from the 2nd century AD. What you are claiming is based on indistinct passages that allow people to interpret whatever they want. We have discussed the interpretation of the god books before. Interpretation, means not what is written but what you want to believe is written.
What you believe is exactly that, what you believe. It does not mean that other people believe what you believe or even want to believe what you believe.