Faith as proof

One of the root problems in the christian (or any other religious person`s) idea of faith is that they SOMETIMES use science, and at other times deny science (utilizing faith as proof for their denial).

We should hold Christians to the same standards across the board. You either believe in science, and feel that its many achievements have helped the world in innumerable ways (and hurt a bit too), OR you think that biblical doctrine and belief has precedent to all things and that science is wrong.

Well most Christians take the stance that science is usually correct, EXCEPT when it disagrees with doctrine. So essentially they posit faith above science. This is where we thereby have a right, indeed a responsibility to challenge their views. This grey area- the area where religious doctrine wants to challenge known scientific-claims is of the utmost controversy- and rightly so. Real people are being hurt by Christian dogma. Real peoples lives are being ruined through the prevention of amazing treatments, like stem cells, because biblical doctrine forbids its utilization of the human embryo.

So lets argue with these Christan on these points. Right?

What system of argumentation would you utilize. Ive said it before, faith is not: reasonable, logical or rational. You cannot use logical arguments to counter faith- because the very nature of faith necessitates that you deny logic at times. That you ignore reason or overstep rational discourse.

There does not need to be proof of stem-cells being wrong, it simply needs to be inferred from the bible.

indeed- this very inference is quite subjective. Who is this all-knowing interpreter of ancient text? Is it based on consensus opinion of a certain translation (metaphorical analysis) of a passage? Why are there disagreements among the sects of Christianity. Not ALL Christians think homosexuality is evil or sin. Not ALL Christan's believe stem cell research is evil. Perhaps we should ask these more moderate Christians to argue with the less moderate ones- but then again that is asking too much. We are asking them to utilize rational, logical, reasonable discourse over a topic that cites faith as proof. You can now see the area of frustration.

Religious faith requires no physical or logical evidence to support its claims. They are amazingly out-of-proof when it comes to countering some of sciences` most fundamental claims. Evolution, geological time, plate tectonics, astronomy etc. are all contrary to literal bible readings.

Religion does not need proof. So their stance on any issue is in effect either null and void, or it is complete and inarguable. Either you reject faith- and every claim that counters science, or you accept faith and thereby throw out any respect you have for scientific methodology. You've negated the intelligent achievements of the entire human species by saying a 2000 year old book (not even that old. and written by farmers and nomads) knows more about astronomy than Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman,Edwin Hubble or any other amazing thinker who has contributed to our knowledge of the universe.