I spent five years on the very topic; that’s why I’m an avowed atheist.
Which, as I argued previously, is accepting statements without proof or testing, and is fundamentally ignorant.
Why not? You believe God will watch over you and protect you from harm, n’est pas? But you’re not willing to actually put that belief to the test, because you know – from secular, scientific evidence – that you’d be railway pizza if you tried.
I can believe with all my heart that the laws of gravity do not apply to me. That still won’t save me if I leaped off the top of the Empire State Building.
You seem to have a serious problem differentiating between “faith” and “knowledge,” Daniel. I suggest you work on that.
Daniel, if a person limits his faith to the scientific (ie. physically observable), it is not the same as having a religion.
Religion and science aren’t mutually exclusive, they don’t even deal with the same set of phenomena.
It is a scientific fact that no God can observed in the universe.
A religious man can, on the basis of his subjective religious experiences, claim that he observes God, but it has no bearing on science since the claim can’t be verified in any way.
Also, since physical observation is the only medium that can be agreed upon as objective, it is only logical that any religious God be considered as not existing when making pragmatical decisions (of course, the psychological effects of religion should be considered).
