Originally posted by Pianoman1
The atheist is as foolish as the believer. Both have blind faith: one in the creator and the other in blind science. Both are deluded. Both have the leap of faith that cannot be proved. The believer puts all his faith in a god he cannot prove, the atheist puts all his faith in a science he cannot prove. Both belong to clubs which are mutually exclusive, an ...[text shortened]... he God Delusion" is as biased as "The Holy Bible" or "The Bhagavad Gita" or "The Koran".

I suppose you think of yourself as one of the wise, since you have this
ability to determine who is foolish. Or did you get this knowledge from
another source, like a messenger of light, who has enlightened you with
an inner knowledge that we foolish people do not have?

Originally posted by Pianoman1
The atheist is as foolish as the believer. Both have blind faith: one in the creator and the other in blind science. Both are deluded. Both have the leap of faith that cannot be proved. The believer puts all his faith in a god he cannot prove, the atheist puts all his faith in a science he cannot prove. Both belong to clubs which are mutually exclusive, an ...[text shortened]... he God Delusion" is as biased as "The Holy Bible" or "The Bhagavad Gita" or "The Koran".

Not true on many different levels but I will stick to one.

My argument for being an atheist, is that it is rational to believe in things for which there is evidence and not believe in things
for which there is not evidence.

Now science is excellent for explaining how the universe works (and certainly is better than any other method ever devised)
but it is not necessary to 'believe in' or apply science to not believe in god/s.

In fact atheism pre-dates science by quite a margin.

All you need to be an atheist is an absence of evidence for the existence of god, you don't need evidence for anything else, or
belief in anything else.

Now most atheists I know are also skeptics and have huge regard for the scientific method and its results, but not all atheists
feel this way, and it is not necessary to be an atheist.

Also, science is the process of investigating the materiel world using rational skepticism, logic and reason, and most of all,
observation and experimentation... It is by design the least blind endeavour ever devised.

Atheism is the default position of someone who wants to believe in what is real based on evidence and observation.
This will remain so if and until such a time as strong evidence arises for the existence of a god or gods.

This argument you have just made is as old as time, and refuted centuries ago.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
The atheist is as foolish as the believer. Both have blind faith: one in the creator and the other in blind science. Both are deluded. Both have the leap of faith that cannot be proved. The believer puts all his faith in a god he cannot prove, the atheist puts all his faith in a science he cannot prove. Both belong to clubs which are mutually exclusive, an ...[text shortened]... he God Delusion" is as biased as "The Holy Bible" or "The Bhagavad Gita" or "The Koran".

What about the Christian who also believes in the science?

Don't make your little piles with no chance of spillover. Some of us do not cleanly represent only any one little pile.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheism is the default position of someone who wants to believe in what is real based on evidence and observation.
This will remain so if and until such a time as strong evidence arises for the existence of a god or gods.

The main problem here is that when you finally have your proof, the offer will have already expired.

The test is whether you can have faith. Not whether you can believe once handed the proof. Clearly, anyone can do that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What about the Christian who also believes in the science?

Don't make your little piles with no chance of spillover. Some of us do not cleanly represent only any one little pile.

Hey Suzianne, happy new year o/ .

Good point, well made.

Although how you do manage to accept science and at the same time think that god will
probably end the world in Armageddon sometime in your lifetime boggles my mind.

Originally posted by Suzianne
The main problem here is that when you finally have your proof, the offer will have already expired.

The test is whether you can have faith. Not whether you can believe once handed the proof. Clearly, anyone can do that.

Doesn't matter in the slightest because I have no intention of worshipping anything that
requires me to worship it on pain of eternal damnation whether it exists or not.

If your god actually exists then I consider it the most evil and despicable being in existence.

However what you are basically arguing here is a soft version of pascals wager.

Which fails utterly.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hey Suzianne, happy new year o/ .

Good point, well made.

Although how you do manage to accept science and at the same time think that god will
probably end the world in Armageddon sometime in your lifetime boggles my mind.

Hey, happy new year back. 🙂

As I have said before in this forum, "Science is the how of the universe, Religion is the why."

There is no reason why they cannot co-exist.

And the answer to your question is simple. This is what was prophesied. This is what was revealed to us through John of Patmos. It is the will and the vengeance of God. It will happen. Yea, it *must* happen in order to bring about the changes necessary to His plan.

Don't forget, I do believe modern science. But I also believe God.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Doesn't matter in the slightest because I have no intention of worshipping anything that
requires me to worship it on pain of eternal damnation whether it exists or not.

If your god actually exists then I consider it the most evil and despicable being in existence.

However what you are basically arguing here is a soft version of pascals wager.

Which fails utterly.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

Gah!

Can the type font on that page possibly be any smaller? Lol.

I gotta run and get my final hours of sleep before work. But I'll bookmark and read this page and get back to you here in the morning.

P.S. I did take a moment to scan it. You're not gonna like what I have to say about it, but I'll refine my comment and make it in the morning, after further reading of this page and others on that site.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Gah!

Can the type font on that page possibly be any smaller? Lol.

I gotta run and get my final hours of sleep before work. But I'll bookmark and read this page and get back to you here in the morning.

P.S. I did take a moment to scan it. You're not gonna like what I have to say about it, but I'll refine my comment and make it in the morning, after further reading of this page and others on that site.

firefox: ctrl +

maybe works in other browsers too?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hey, happy new year back. 🙂

As I have said before in this forum, "Science is the how of the universe, Religion is the why."

There is no reason why they cannot co-exist.

And the answer to your question is simple. This is what was prophesied. This is what was revealed to us through John of Patmos. It is the will and the vengeance of God. It wil ...[text shortened]... necessary to His plan.

Don't forget, I do believe modern science. But I also believe God.

Heh, how could I forget ;-)

Science is indeed the how of the universe (or the investigation thereof)...
Where I differ is that there is no need for a why.

Why implies an intellect, a purpose, a reason... and I see no evidence for, or need of, any of those.
At least insofar as discussions of ours and the universes existence.

The universe doesn't need a reason to exist, there is no why, just how.

At least until such a time as evidence arises that indicates that there is a reason and a being to have it.


And even if there is a why to the universe, there is a reason for it's existence, then what possible way
do you have of determining that the being responsible is your god of the bible.

I've said it before, and will undoubtedly say it again, there is no argument or reason for believing in your
god of the bible that can't also and equally be applied to Allah, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Without evidence, you can believe only on blind faith, but it's doubly blind faith because you have to blindly
pick the one thing to believe out of the infinity of other potential choices.
Picking the religion and god that your society or family favours may make social sense, but makes no more
rational sense than any other choice.

And their is a reason why religion and Science can't coexist, proper application of scientific skepticism requires
(with our current knowledge) that you take the position of atheism, it's the only rational position to take, the only
one logic supports.
To be a theist requires that you abandon rationality and logic at least once, and what you can do once....

Originally posted by Suzianne
Gah!

Can the type font on that page possibly be any smaller? Lol.

I gotta run and get my final hours of sleep before work. But I'll bookmark and read this page and get back to you here in the morning.

P.S. I did take a moment to scan it. You're not gonna like what I have to say about it, but I'll refine my comment and make it in the morning, after further reading of this page and others on that site.

I will await with interest. :-)
Sorry about the type size, but you can indeed zoom on both firefox and I.E.

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]Doesn't matter in the slightest because I have no intention of worshipping anything that
requires me to worship it on pain of eternal damnation whether it exists or not.

any god who desires worship doesn't deserve it. any god who deserves worship wouldn't desire it.

If your god actually exists then I consider it the most evil and despicable being in existence.

However what you are basically arguing here is a soft version of pascals wager.

Which fails utterly.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html[/b]

any person with a logically sound mind and a familiarity with religion would immediately see the flaw in pascal's wager and that site has as good a refutation as i've seen, but i'm curious, what is the connection of pascal's wager with what suzianne said?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hey, happy new year back. 🙂

As I have said before in this forum, "Science is the how of the universe, Religion is the why."

There is no reason why they cannot co-exist.

And the answer to your question is simple. This is what was prophesied. This is what was revealed to us through John of Patmos. It is the will and the vengeance of God. It wil ...[text shortened]... necessary to His plan.

Don't forget, I do believe modern science. But I also believe God.

That is right Suzianne as long as Scicence can get it right. As yet,
that hasn't happened. It looks like it will take awhile as long as
these evolutionists have so much influence on interpretation of the
scientific studies, etc.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Tell us some more about the genocide of Muslims you were calling for on 19th December.

In the Vedic times long ago.........violent groups of people who encroached upon the rights of the innocent public where not allowed to exist.

The weak governments of the world allow all manner of violent individuals and groups to go unchecked.

Vedic society doesn't allow this.

Any group or individual who rapes, murders, assaults and tortures another - has given up their right to live amongst the civilized people.

All you need to be an atheist is an absence of evidence for the existence of god, you don't need evidence for anything else, or
belief in anything else.[/b]

I'm sorry, googlefudge, but i think you have your facts wrong here. The atheist's position is a positive disbelief in a god. He does not take his position out of an absence of evidence. That is the position of the agnostic. The agnostic doesn't believe in god because he has no evidence. He is keeping his options open. The atheist positively disbelieves. He has closed off all lines of enquiry and become, like the believer, closed to all evidence. Both are inflexible.