That being said anyone who is religious would feel uncomfortable while watching “Religulous”. The name to me was well thought out but offensive, “Religulous” a portmanteau or blend of the two words, religion and ridiculous. To me the movie should have actually been called “Christian Bashing Featuring Some Other Religions for Split Seconds” by Bill Maher. I wrote down many of his questionable quotes that are almost intelligent. Bill Maher is a smart individual but an agnostic can only promote what they know which means not very much when it comes to religion.
McCloskey contended against the three mystical verifications, which are the cosmological argument, the argument from design and the teleological argument. He called attention to the presence of evil on the planet that God made. He likewise called attention to that it is irrational to live by trust or faith. As indicated by McCloskey, confirmations do not essentially assume a fundamental part in the conviction of God. Page 62 of the article expresses that "most theists do not come to have faith in God as a premise for religious conviction, however come to religion as a consequence of different reasons and variables."
The belief in a miracle can come from either experiencing them or religious reasons and explanations. People that believe in miracles usually believe in the religious evidence that we are provided with. Christians and Catholics will believe that miracles can happen because there are a lot of stories in the bible that seem to break the laws of nature and almost seem impossible to believe in, for example Jesus healed poorly people and he rose from the dead. In our society people believe that rising from the dead is humanly impossible and then jump into assumptions that this event must of had some sort of supernatural explanation; others will not believe it at all. Catholic people think that if you believe in God miracles seem more obvious to you and if you deny and test the existence of God then it will be harder to see the miracles happen.
2 EXPERIENTIAL APOLOGETICS One form of apologetics is called “Experiential Apologetics”. This method of apologetics asks “Have we experienced God?” We know God exists because we have been able to 3experience His being around us. This is very much the same as fideism, which is reliance on faith rather than reason in the pursuit for religious truth (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Experiential apologists could use their personal testimony, which is a vital
It is not a reliable way. This includes reasoning and making predictions without further testing. Faith is another way that a lot of Christian believers us to seek the truth. The faith based way of seeking the truth is different from the scientific method in that it can answer a lot of questions about the most important truths. (Religious-Science.com 2008) The truths about the purpose of life and that our creator, God wants us to be happy and that he has a plan for each one of us.
Why Is There Evil And Suffering In The World? The curious as well as the critics of Christianity ask this question. If God is all-powerful and all loving, then why does He permit evil and suffering in the world? Various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, our lack of ability to answer the question perfectly does not mean that we cannot offer solutions.
In particular, when speaking of Spies, the lines are not as clear as they do not accept the tenets of Christianity but see activities such as prayer or forgiveness as useful to the secular world. Because of this area of debate, the idea of absolutes is not possible. Without absolutes, how can we actually give someone guidance on how and where to go in their lives? Without a spiritual path that is laid out and definite, where does someone with a troubled soul go? I am grateful for the door that the book opens by illustrating how the two worlds of psychology and Christianity can be married yet as in any marriage, there is always areas that are not
Kevin Morgan LCC 3302 The Effect of Darwin’s Theory on the Christian and Scientific Communities 570 It is well known that Darwin was not the biggest fan of religion. However, his general attitude toward the church was far from malicious. Darwin’s research was purely of scientific merit, and yet was perceived as an attack on the idea of creationism. The church took personal offense by his publications, and even retaliated with volumes of work discrediting Darwin. While his ideas were revolutionary at the time, Christianity has persisted for over a century, but has built a tolerance to the ideas of natural selection.
Religions has always been supported as the fundamental reliable source of truth which was supported and promoted by the Roman Catholic church, René Descartes the French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician challenged the churches authority to provide these truths, this created an era when the roman catholic church was challenged by many philosophers as the sole interpreter and providers of truths and findings from philosophers like Aristotle. “Martin Luther and the development of the Protestant Reformation presented a strong challenge to the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church and its authority to provide the sole correct religious truths.” (Mosser 2011) “The Aristotelian view of the nature of the physical world was also regarded as authoritative, but it began to be questioned by such astronomers as Copernicus, Galileo, and Descartes himself.” Although I consider myself a very religious person I will support my argument with less ideology and more inductive logic and reasoning. First we will discuss the definition of
The use of faith as a foundation of getting and recieving knowledge is a contreversial topic that has been debated. Faith in the bible is basically what the belief of God is about, having hope for a supernatural being that nobody can implant within you. Human beings always want to inquire more, but for some people inquiring more knowledge means to actually feel it and sense it in order to believe it. To some extent this is the opposite of faith, because faith however is a belief on something or someone without needing to get that “evidence”. There are more than seven billion people on our planet and each individual has a different belief, but why is it that faith as an individual is such a controversial topic?