And at least intellectually I would agree with this. Anecdotally I’ve never run into any thing other than bemusement about my own thoughts on god, certainly not on the order of some of the reactions I’ve gotten cultural/racial type things, but I can picture a certain amount of distrust or rejection by highly religious types.
Exactly. Oh, I have no doubt that the Der Trihs’s of the world are feeling persecuted for their atheism (I can imagine WHY Der would be persecuted for his belief too…hell, I’d probably persecute him myself and I mostly agree with him on this point), but really they need to get a grip and see how minorities were treated in this country as little as a few decades ago to see what REAL persecution is.
I don’t follow nor believe in the doctrines of science. When something is unknown, it is simply unknown. I don’t need a logic guide to thinking. Now, God can not be proven in a material manner, science is a study of material things, therefor God can not be discovered by science. If one says He don’t believe in God, he is admitting the possibility of God. Therefor Atheists are not telling the truth. Agnostics simply say they don’t know, which is the truth. Walla.
There is a realm of spirit in which God resides, this realm is known only through personal experience, billions of people will tell you they have experienced God, therefor God exists for them. See easy to understand without doctrine of any kind.
Complete and utter bullshit. Every single time you use something that humanity gained via the doctrines of science you are placing faith in them. Since you’re posting on the internet using some form of computer you must be using and benefitting from the these doctrines of science. Science doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not, it still works.
Um, wtf does this mean? Can something be complexly unknown? What happens when something that was unknown is now known?
Empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
See? You do need a logic guide. This is a bad argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and one of the premises (the first one) is unsupported.
Um, what? Once again, this argument makes no sense. Athiesm does not say ‘There is no possibility of god’. Logic and reason might say that, but it is not athiesm’s position. This is called a strawman argument.
Did you even read this thread? Agnosticism says that the truth of god’s existance is unknowable.
If you do not believe in the doctrines of science, I humbly request that you stop using such words as “proof” and “cite”. Thank you.
Millions of people have owned dogs. They even agree on the general attributes-loyalty, friendliness, four legs, two eyes, etc. Using your line of reasoning, I would have to conclude that everyone owns the same dog.
The words proof and/or cite (citation) existed long before the beginning of science as we know it today. So those words do not belong to science. I will respectfully decline.
In my post I alluded to the difference between material and spiritual, a dog is material and does not qualify as you are using it.
Yeah? Well these two atheists got a book in the seventies from Jesus who said that dog is god spelled backwards. And as such god is actually present in all dogs, so everyone on earth does own the same dog. And millions of people believe as I do and everyone who can’t see that is blind.
I have duly noted that science devotees believe science to be the world’s savior, much like religion believes God/Jesus to be the world’s savior.
Both closed belief systems take credit for all the good things that have happened to mankind. I tend to believe most of the good things discovered or invented were done either by accident or those who didn’t care much for either group. I believe the truth is most break-through successes were accomplished by self-taught individuals thinking outside of the box.
I don’t need a science logic guide, I took logic long before science added the doctrine to it. Well, it all doesn’t really matter who did what for why. None of that helps us today.
The large difference between religion and science is science is concerned with material things and religion is concerned with spiritual things. That is why we need them both. Science to find ways to improve our material life, and religion to improve our mental/emotional life. They go together like fish and chips.
That’s not true at all. If you think the existence of something is impossible, then you don’t believe in it. Not believing in something is not at all admitting that it’s possible for that thing to exist. I’m curious how you came to this conclusion.
Well, you should count yourself lucky then. I know any number of atheists who have been rejeted by their familes, fiances, harassed on the job, threatened, etc.
The evidence for brain eating zombies is much better than the evidence for God. As I said, we have corpses, we have brains; we have no evidence for any kind of spirits beyond the unsupported word of believers. Not to mention that most people’s version of God doesn’t even make internal logical sense. The possibility that some passing alien with a sense of humor and advanced bio/nano/whatevertech has animated a few corpses is much higher than the chance that God exists, because animating a corpse doesn’t require postulating things that we have no evidence can exist, much less do exist. God is just about the least likely idea there is.
Not anything that violate’s that universe’s laws, like God. Nor things that are logically contradictory, like most version of God. And we don’t even know if the universe is infinite or not.
Oh, and should I claim uncertainty about the existence of fairies and goblins as well ? :rolleyes: Both of which are infinitely more plausible than God.
This is, yet again, the insistence that religion receive special treatment. On any other subject, no one would question the statement that “I know that X does not exist” or that “believing in X is silly, because there’s no evidence and it makes no sense”. If I claimed that 9-11 was caused by planes piloted by brainwashed lesbians in an attempt by aliens to get Bush re-elected, I’d be laughed at, and people wouldn’t hesitate to call that ridiculous and impossible - and yet, it’s more plausible than God. It breaks no physical laws, it has more evidence ( those planes did exist, Bush did get re-elected, after all), it lacks the logical contradictions that tend to fill religion.
The attitude that you and others are pushing is the religious-apologist version of the occasional poster who insists we should all be solipsists because we can’t “prove” the universe exists.
So, Jebus saves us from sin/hell. What do science devotees believe science saves us from?
Science does? Really? Cite?
Wait, science did what with logic? Are you trying to say that you took logic long before science began using it?
[QUOTE]
Well, it all doesn’t really matter who did what for why. None of that helps us today/QUOTE]
Huh?
We do? Um, nope, I don’t really need any spirituality, I’ve seen what it does to people.
Actually, science is quite good at the whole mental and emotional thing. And they most certainly do not go together or compliment each other. People don’t necessarily need religion. There’s nothing it can give that can’t be had another way, generally much cheaper and without all the ceremony.
I was just making sure. From what you posted, you are an atheist. Welcome to the club.
Only if atheism involved knowledge, which it doesn’t. It’s a lack of belief, which includes belief against. Belief against would include claims of knowledge against, but the number of those claiming knowledge that there is no god is very small - and the non-goofy set even smaller.
Even the well loved dictionary definitions talk of belief, not knowledge.
Utter nonsense. The difference is that science is based on facts, it proposes hypotheses and tests them, then discards them when they fail. Religion doesn’t concern itself with the spiritual, but the fictional; science doesn’t concern itself with the spiritual because there’s nothing there for it to concern itself with.
If there was evidence for “spiritual things”, science would be concerned with them; and if there was evidence for the spiritual then the spiritual would no longer be a religious matter. Religion only concerns itself with outright false or unsupported beliefs; those that require faith; if something is known to be true, it stands on it’s own. This is why science works, and religion does not.
And religion doesn’t “improve our mental/emotional life”; it corrupts and dominates and destroys. It spreads and consumes, like the disease that it is.
Oh. If something is unknown, do you believe in it? Or do you withold belief until you do know something about it?
I beg to differ.
I don’t know about your non-sched theology, but some versions of God could be demonstrated pretty well if the god in question chose to show up. Some versions of God are impossible, but some may be possible, but none have been demonstrated to meet my threshold of belief. Throwing sevens with one pair of dice 100 times in a row is possible with a fair set, but would you believe the set is fair?
So, did your god actually do anything except supposedly communicate contradictory things the the gullible? Besides what is in your head, is the world any different if there wasn’t a god?
Don’t let yourself get excited about this. The “doctrine of science” is nothing more than a catchphrase that lekatt invented to throw out as a tu quoque any time the subject of science makes it into a thread where he is posting.
It has no meaning (and he has never even pretended to define it).
It has no relevance to the discussion.
It only exists on his posts, (not even in his mind: he does not believe there is such a thing as he refuses to define or demonstrate it).
It is the message board equivalent of “my mom said you’re just jealous.”
