Science Negates All of Abrahamic Religions

There was no Adam and Eve (genetics proves that ) . No garden of Eden , no talking snake , no tree of of the knowledge of good and evil . And definitely no Original Sin . No Job . No Jonah living in the belly of the whale . No Noah and the great flood (geology , archaeology , and genetics disprove that ) . No Exodus (Israeli archaeologists proved that in both 1949 and 1967 ) . No Moses . Even most rabbis do not believe in an historical Moses . And no talking donkeys . Couple that with the fact that Matthew ,Mark , Luke and John are just made up names and nothing is known about the actual writers of these texts . In fact none of the writers in the New Testament ever met Jesus . And do I need remind you that Jesus lied about when he would return ? He said that some of the people alive while he was speaking would be alive when he returned . Unless there are some 2000 year old people still running around then he indeed lied . I fully support your right to believe any nonsense you choose to believe but don't act like it is actual truth or proof .

@caissad4

Science doesn’t negate any of this. Science and religion move in alternate universes of discourse. Chemistry tells us what the chess pieces are made of, and physics tells us one piece cannot be in two places at one time, but neither chemistry nor physics compels a player to move 15. e4-e5 or why that is a good or bad move. Richard Reti tells us why it’s a good or bad move, without knowing anything about physics or chemistry.

Same with science and religion: science explains how things happen, religion gives people a reason (exhorts people) to act morally, by teaching people what is good or bad. It just happens that the OT was written in an allegorical style which people 2-3,000 yrs ago falsely interpreted as a kind of true history. Read it as you would Hänsel und Gretl, and there’s no problem about it; just remember that witches don’t really exist (despite Ex. 22:18).

@moonbus said
@caissad4

Science doesn’t negate any of this. Science and religion move in alternate universes of discourse. Chemistry tells us what the chess pieces are made of, and physics tells us one piece cannot be in two places at one time, but neither chemistry nor physics compels a player to move 15. e4-e5 or why that is a good or bad move. Richard Reti tells us why it’s a good or ...[text shortened]... and there’s no problem about it; just remember that witches don’t really exist (despite Ex. 22:18).

@caissad4 said
You are very wrong . And if you truly need a religion to act morally then you have a whole other set of problems.

@moonbus said
@caissad4

Science doesn’t negate any of this.

@caissad4 said
There was no Adam and Eve (genetics proves that ) . No garden of Eden , no talking snake , no tree of of the knowledge of good and evil . And definitely no Original Sin . No Job . No Jonah living in the belly of the whale . No Noah and the great flood (geology , archaeology , and genetics disprove that ) . No Exodus (Israeli archaeologists proved that in both 1949 and 1967 ) ...[text shortened]... right to believe any nonsense you choose to believe but don't act like it is actual truth or proof .

@vivify said
Science doesn't negate religion but it can disprove certain claims made by religions, such as a global flood, 6,000 yr age of the earth, fully-formed humans suddenly appearing on earth rather than evolving from ape ancestors, etc.

Science more often than not does not and, indeed, cannot negate people's faith. In that respect, religionists are on a hiding to nothing framing their religions as science's competitors.

-Removed-

-Removed-

@caissad4 said
Sorry to disappoint , but I am not angry at your god . I cannot be angry at something which I believe does not even exist .The analogy and hearsay argument is bogus . Are you really saying that most Christians do not believe in Adam and Eve , garden of Eden , talking snake and the core of Christian belief , Original Sin ???? Christianity is a nonsense manmade religion followed by ignorant nonsensical people .