This is ridiculous. First of all, you made up the first stat. Secondly, I love your last paragraph. That's what every non-creationist says when this topic comes up. "It's proven by science done by scientists". Don't you get tired of saying that? Do you realize how uninformed you sound? Or how little evidence there actually is to explain anything about the start of the universe?

"First of all, you made up the first stat" No shit. It's hinting towards a generalization.

"Or how little evidence there actually is to explain anything about the start of the universe?"  To be honest, there's no evidence. I honestly don't care if you think god did it or not. But guess what? Scientists are slowly finding their way towards finding an explanation of the universe with proof. I am tired of hearing the stupid explanation given in the Bible. That isn't science. It shall never be science. There isn't any evidence to prove it.

Just to help me prevent any more terrible arguments, there isn't much proof for how the universe began for scientists. In reality we just...well, don't know much about the beginning. Is it horrible for us humans to humble ourselves and admit our ignorance at some topics?

Anyone voting "yes" is inherently ignorant.

Faith is opposite reason, by definition. There is no reasonable faith, nor is there faithful reason. Such an idea is as Orwellian as "War is peace."

Not to jump in... but I couldn't help myself.

"First you have to understand what Christianity and christians claim, what internally is the claim. Does Christianity claim that it is based on faith, as in blind faith? Yes, undeniably it does! Very much so. But it also claims that faith is to some extent based on rational thought."

Why do we care what it claims one way or the other?  Christianity can claim it is based on rational thought, but it is not, because there is no rational evidence.

"It's another issue then whether that rational thought, that rational attitude, leads to discovery of truth. But you can't deny that the attitude is there. While "blind faith" is more important, it's not the only basis for Christian belief, some of it is also based on rational thought, logical reasoning and search for evidence."

Of course you can deny the attitude is there.  If rational thought does not lead to god or religion, and religious people are led to god, then they are not employing rational thought.  Please explain how logical thinking or rational thought is employed in christian thinking.

"There's a lot of Christian apologists who use sophisticated philosophical arguments to prove the existence of God. I'm sure you have seen at least some of the debates on YouTube between Christian apologists and atheist philosophers, and they cover a broad area of topics, including philosophical arguments."

Not really.  There are apologists who use sophisticated *sounding* pseudophilosophical arguments, but despite watching many debates I've not seen a good argument.  All I've seen are variations on the flawed cosmological argument, the ridiculous transcendental argument, the even more ridiculous ontological argument, and various forms of presuppositionalists.  I can't recall the exact names, but I've seen quite a few of William Lane Craig, Matt Slick, Eric Hovind, Sye... his last name escapes me but the really retarded guy, and a few others.  If you know of any interesting debates with apologists that provide actual evidence, let me know, but I haven't seen it yet.  

But, no philosophical argument has or can prove god.  Present any you'd like, but they all contain various logical fallacies.  Personal incredulity and special pleading being chief among them.

"Christians talk about general revelation and special revelation, where the first means that the creation itself, our world, testifies about God, physically and morally (special revelation is where God revealed himself as Yahweh to the Jewish people and through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus). The Apostle Paul claims that nature testifies about God, that you can see traces of God in nature, and he claims that human moral, every human's understanding about good and evil is ingrained by God and thus proof of God."

Creation is not evidence of god, and I believe we've talked about the blind watchmaker already.  The bible is unverifiable, obviously fallacious, and so abominable that we should all sincerely hope it is false.  The concept of good and evil can be explained much better through naturalistic means (certain traits are necessary for a social species.  We don't last long without empathy) and the idea of laws handed down by a static god is not consistent with the moral variation we see across cultures and time.  Aside from this, the bible is a moral cespool where god commands murder and rape, among other things.

"Also, many Christian apologists argue that the Bible is quite pro science and has inspired people to study nature. In fact there's a lot of myths about Christianity's relationship with science, like you say, that it has been at odds with science for the longest, which simply isn't true."

That argument is obviously wrong.  A literal interpretation of the bible is definitely at odds with scientific facts.  The idea of faith is inherently incompatible with the scientific method.  It may be overly simplistic to say Christianity is at odds with science, but while there have been great christian scientists, science has generally been supressed by science.  Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, evolution, to stem cell research, aids prevention, and other issues in moern times.

"For example, modern science was born in Christian Europe. If you look at the world's cultures where science and innovation historically has been strongest, it's in Christian cultures. All of the famous historical scientists up until the time of Darwin where Christians. Why is that? Is it just coincidence? No. For example it is said that the whole scientific mindset, that the world is governed by laws and allows itself to be studied, is also rooted in Christianity and that this way of thinking got a boost historically thanks to Christianity. It's not fair to say that Christianity is at odds with science."

As many people have already pointed out, the argument in the OP is biased on the definitions that you use.

To me, faith is a strong belief in something. The Oxford dictionary says it better than I can, as it defines faith as:

"Complete trust or confidence in someone or something"

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/faith

The above definition does not include (or exclude) reasonable thinking. I think faith is reasonable, but I agree that there can be cases were someone's faith can also be unreasonable.

In my view, we've all had to go on faith at some point in our lives, whether that was in church or in science class.

When was the last time anyone personally saw an individual atom? Yet we believe that they exist. More than likely, we were told that they exist by a teacher or professor who never personally saw one either. Can any of us prove that an atom exists? Or do we just accept it as fact because a book told us so? Is this reasonable? I think it is. But then isn't this just our (reasonable) faith in science?

The second definition states its a strong belief that relies on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Reasonable for the mental health of others...but not rational.

A theory with no proof? Theories are composed of facts and strong hypothesis.

From my understanding, Hypothesis are "educated" guesses that can be tested. Theories come from "tested and scrutinized" hypothesis. So I don't agree that theories are just guesses with no proof.

http://notjustatheory.com/

'll Copy paste some of the highlighted stuff.

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested.

Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law by it's ok to be smart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA

...  Equating what we learn in church and science class actually is kind of offensive to me.

Here is the difference.  We have plenty of evidence that atoms exist.  You can remove the hydrogen from water.  And not like, in a million dollar lab, but at home with beakers and a battery.  We can combine sodium and chlorine to make salt.  You can drop potasium in water and see it burn.  These things depend on atoms reacting as we would expect based on atomic theory.

Looking beyond the do it yourself stuff, atoms are produced in labs.  We can see them with electron microscopes.  We have built bombs based on splitting and fusing atoms.  We make acids based on our knowledge of atoms.

We know atoms exist because they have practical applications.  Batteries, atomic energy, medicine and so on.  It's powering houses right now.  There are islands that have been literally obliterated because of our knowledge of atoms.  These things would not work if our understanding of atoms is wrong.  Pretty much any instance of applied chemistry would not work if our understanding of atoms is completely wrong.

And lastly there are mountains and mountains of literature about atoms that you can look up, that has been verified by a community of scientists.  Anyone who can prove that our knowledge of atoms is wrong would win the nobel prize without a doubt.  You can read countless studies.  If you had the money, you could test the results to see if you can replicate them.


So no, you can't see atoms (well if you're rich or qualified for certain jobs you can), but you can see their effects.  We can see its application, we can read peer reviewed studies, we can see atoms, and we can replicate experiments.  There is such an incredible abundance of evidence that atoms exist that a massive massive conspiracy, which would probably have to involve supernatural forces deceiving us, would be the only way the idea of atoms could be wrong.  We can't get to 100% proof (although some would say we have) but we can get to 99.999999999%.  We can get so close that it is absolutely absurd not to accept it.

Of course there can be people who just say "oh my teacher said so" and don't think beyond that, but those who are interested can easily find the evidence.  With religion, the evidence is not there, no matter how hard you look.  You CAN take science on faith.  You CAN ONLY take religion on faith.

"Faith - Belief in something one cannot observe or reasonably conclude.
Reasonable - Having sound reasoning."

Your definitions do not allow faith to be reasonable, however, faith actually is (and the definitions here are very flawed as they are). It is not one's conclusion or belief that is logical or illogical---it is how one reached it. Philosophers have been coming up with sound/valid arguments on behalf for centuries, millennia even, and conversely philosophers have been coming up with sound/valid arguments against it for about as long.

Faith is rational provided one reached it or can justify it through acceptable tenets of logic. Failing this, one's faith would be irrational. That being said, the same goes for the opposite. If one is atheist/anti-theist due to logic, that position is rational. Failing that, an atheist/anti-theist would be irrational. Most people on both sides are manifestly irrational since very few people are actually taught logic or philosophy (which includes months of studying logic before getting into the Big Questions).

Logic will never conclusively lead to one side definitively defeating the other side, for logical debate is like a game of rock-paper-scissors where all participants take turns and the game doesn't have any conditions for victory.