why atheism is cultural cancer

Do you think those two terms are mutually exclusive?

?? which two?

Two terms: Catholic and biblically well-versed. Debbie's claim; not that I agree with her, because on a couple of occasions. I've found her references of dubious interpretation [imo], but merely that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Well, one assumes that some Catholics are more conversant with biblical detail than others. Such would be the difference between Stephen and I for example...Stephen being the better informed sceptic...Though precise memory of scripture does not mean that subjective interpretation is more likely to be accurate or factual...And it would be a tad arrogant to assume that a labelled Protestant is somehow more likely to interpret scripture more accurately than a Catholic would.

In my opinion all biblical interpretation is "dubious"...Therefore all interpretation is dubiously concurrent.

I am with you throughout your first paragraph in your #33.

However, I disagree that "all biblical interpretation is 'dubious.' I begin with this: As God inspired men and women to write scripture, His word is Truth, but problems begin immediately with that first inspired person because only rarely is that revelation in person with spoken words, and immediately recorded by the receiver. Few have perfect repetition of something told to them. Therefore, what they were told ends being interpretive and not perfectly repeated. That problem is exacerbated by person-to-person generative repetitions based upon oral rendition. But because there is an origin to the information, and that origin is perfect [God], His version is also perfect, not dubious.

If there is such a GOD of course...Which I doubt and you perhaps do not.

Though I do run with the idea of a Universal GOD principle...A principle that does not necessitate words and scripture.

I also run with the idea of a super intelligent seeder...Sprinkle and go...Also no need for instructions, especially daft biblical stuff...Sin and salvation nonsense...In terms of Universal time, sin and salvation was made up by intellectually developing primates just the other day...No GOD input was necessary.

No, not just "perhaps not," but absolutely yes, I do not doubt.

And passing off religion as a "daft biblical stuff [or Quran, or Tanach, or, or, or]" might just as well be countered by daft scientific stuff [there's certainly been a lot of that, too!], and much of it without instruction, as well. I can knock science all day long, but find that as boring as knocking religion.

It goes both ways, my friend.

Well, proper scientific method simply tests theories and may or may not result in definitive answers that either confirm a theories accuracy or inaccuracy.

There is a tendency to confuse proper science with either science fiction or pseudo-science.

I would suggest that, religion is science fiction and religious creation and existence theory is pseudo-science.

People can get mad at the OP but what he’s saying seems to be objectively true. We’re early yet but it seems like secular societies just self destruct after a few generations.

At some point it makes you wonder why humans are seemingly built for religion. What did they know 🤔

I’ve inadvertently fallen into my local high fertility tradcath bubble, even though it’s not really for me (I definitely feel out of place) it’s such a different world. You’ll meet 28 year old women pregnant with baby #4 and people will be surprised if you “only” have 2 kids in your early 30s, etc

Then I look up people on Facebook and see the totally abysmal coupling and birth rates among my high school graduating class….except for the people who coded as religious from what I can recall. They usually have two kids by now. You can criticize any religion until you’re blue in the face and I would probably agree with a lot of it but the social norms of people who actually a religion seem more conducive to human existence just objectively

In the one hand they embrace modern technology, and yet they are fearful of embracing contraception in the other hand...LOL...Such is culture.

Science and religion should be on the exact same page, and not even just two sides of one coin. They have the capacity to be th3e same coin on both sides and the edge, but seldom are.

As I often try and point out, people have a tendency to think of science as something other than an intellectual exercise that seeks to test and determine theory.

Whereas religion and religious belief are fantastic theory that cannot be scientifically tested.

Two different coins altogether...But of course, all coins have a certain mental commonality.

What makes you think that faith is not a sixth sense to add to our typical five? What if it is? I believe that it is exactly that, and not merely belief, which can be applied to any thought whatsoever. In order for faith to function properly, it can only apply to what is already true, but currently unknown. Something like humans learning how to use echo locati0on, or compass-point sensitivity. Th3se are common senses in some other animals; why not humans, too. Then add faith as still another sense - that upon which science depends for its "testing" of theory.

My God hates your God was created by the Universe 3D gamers.

That too is a theory that has not been tested.

But I rather think that Abrahamic style religious faith is based upon indoctrinated data...Data that represents a very naive creation and existence hypothesis that was devised between 2000 and 4000 years ago...Yet another hypothesis that cannot be tested....And let's be honest, the religious faith that you expound was not the first of it's kind, it's an idea that's been kicking around for as long as human primates have been attempting to put two and two together.

So why would my analysis not be correct?

Not tested? I test it, and so do you, literally every day, but then, senses are hardly shared experiences, are they? They are intensely personal; we share the rudiments of them, but we can only speak of them in generalities because we sense them independent of one another, and yet, we depend on them for the basics of science. We have instruments to measure the details of each, but the data is, by nature, far removed from the feelings we each generate to quantify sight, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching; and faith and echo location and magneto-reception and... the evidence we have of science and religion. Same side of a coin, as I said.

But you seem to have no idea what I am talking about.

AI will bring Religion and Science together in an abstract way.