Science and religion aren’t answering the same question.

Not OP but, I liked your comments and wanted to reply.

What else is there?

Everything we haven’t figured out yet. Which is like 99% of everything.

Why?

Because the underlying truth about science and our Pursue of truth is that we don’t know everything and there’s always more to discover.

If you left your beliefs up to just what Science says. You would only know what you can see with your naked eye. And beliefs based on authoritative information you can’t verify.

If you refuse to do any critical thinking and pondering and investigating yourself. Then your just a puppet agreeing with your master.

That's why we have ethics.

Ethics/ moral philosophy and religious beliefs have been intertwined for so many centuries. How can we be certain our perception of right and wrong isn’t just a watered down version of what “god” said is right and wrong?

Right? If we don’t know IF ethics is what spurred religions right/wrong standards or if God said it’s write and wrong and ethics evolved out of that. This is a chicken and egg situation. Therefore we can’t go “that’s why we have ethics”, cause we don’t know if they’re from a made up foundation.

Yes it does, because the fundamental assumption behind religious morality is "X is moral because god ordained it so" (either because he's god, or because he knows better). If there's no god, why would we pay any attention to anything this supposed non-existent god thinks about morality?

As pointed out a second ago, religious beliefs and moral Philosophy are so intertwined to determine which influence what would be a shot in the dark. So if all of this right and wrong is based on human thought and made up gods words. Then even the foundation of what is right and what is wrong is made up bullshit.

You can make the same argument about fiction: fictional stories often have profound moral lessons in them (Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" would be one such example), but that doesn't make any of what's written "true" or "better". Are you claiming religions are basically fiction with moral lessons in them?

Yes, that’s what OP is doing.

That's a post-hoc rationalization. The actual text never says anything like that. I could just the same make an argument that an Adam & Eve story is a story about a sadistic god who, knowing that Adam & Eve will fail the "test" he devised, still put a tree in there, and still punished them. This "moral lesson" isn't in the text either, but it would be just as valid (if not more valid) than your interpretation. Where do we go from there? Of the two of us, who do you think has the "correct" interpretation of Adam & Eve story?

I agree that it could be interpreted differently. But, You’re making an assumption of omniscience. The god portrayed in the Bible is not, he is very reactionary. The omniscient god comes from philosophy.

Now all that being said. I am not a Christian, I am not advocating that the Bible is true. I’m just bored and figuring I’d give my 2cents.

/r/DebateAnAtheist Thread Parent