<p>^ It is also foolish to believe that simply because we have no evidence of something existing that it does not exist. You are arguing something that I am not denying - except for saying that believing in God is stupid. Taking the argument to such an extreme is unnecessary. </p>
<p>I’d say believing in God is very, VERY faithful. Not stupid. How can it be stupid? My point is simply that science requires a certain degree of faith, and so applying that faith to other areas of life is justifiable as well. I agree with you in saying that our senses provide us with tangible elements and therefore faith in them is more justifiable, but considering the possibility that the chemical reactions that science explains are merely the physical manifestations of the actions of a God, then it is not stupid to believe in a God. Analogously, it is not stupid to believe in alien life simply because we have not discovered it yet.</p>
<p>There’s absolutely no evidence that the “chemical reactions” are a manifestation of God! What denies the existence of a completely nonsentient object that created the universe? hat denies the existence of the universe as it “is”? Why does there have to be a God behind everything? You have completely and utter faith in God because you believe the world to be a manifestation of him but thats unwarranted and believing in something thats unwarranted is stupid. </p>
<p>Your analogy is not relevant. Alien life can arise given conditions that are similar or not similar to Earth. Nobody “believes” in alien life. People “believe” that there’s a strong, very very strong, possibility that Alien life exists due to the vast nature of the Universe. We deal in probabilities, not absolute truths.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the belief in the strong probability of alien life is grounded in facts we have determined to be true (life exists, life can arise in a multitude of environments, there are a very large number of environments that exist). The belief in god isnt based on fact but is completely and utterly based on assumptions (god exists).</p>
<p>tldr There is evidence that alien life may be widespread. There’s no reason to believe that god exists because there’s no evidence for him. Any theories that the universe is a manifestation of him is supposition and has no empirical proof.</p>
<p>Second, of course there is no evidence of God’s existence or manipulation of chemical reactions! Are you purposely missing my point? I am saying it is a possibility that is not necessarily refuted by science.</p>
<p>Ok, screw the analogy. It is rational to believe in the possibility of a theory when it is backed by facts, right? So a theory that is not yet backed by facts but is not disproven is plausible, because it has potential to be backed by facts in the future.</p>
<p>Please do not take me for saying that God is by any means more likely to exist than no God, I am just providing the opposing viewpoint to show that theists should not be insulted for their faith in a God (faith being the key word here).</p>
<p>So, Science vs. Religion, which wins? My argument would be neither; they are intertwined.</p>
<p>I agree that a God is plausible and may be backed by facts in the future but I see no reason for him to be “believed in” at this point in time. I believe he does not exist but I would be foolish to believe that I know everything.</p>
<p>I disagree that they are intertwined. Some measure of “faith” is required in believing in both but they’re degrees of faith. Science requires very little faith. No faith whatsoever past the assumption that our senses are true. Using our senses, science builds based on prior established facts by definition. Religion requires faith from the beginning until the end with absolutely no facts whatsoever required.</p>
<p>When differentiating between degrees, it’s valid to state that one degree is not a valid conclusion while another is merely because the fact that we must trust our senses is a given. We have absolutely no other alternative whatsoever. Science is built upon these ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY assumptions. Religion, on the other hand, is built upon completely invalid assumptions.</p>
<p>When faith is taken so such extremes, its foolish and idiotic. </p>
<p>I personally have no problem with religion except religion is always used as a focus to promote conservative viewpoints. Religious people exercise their religion on the rest of us. The debacles at the Texas school board and the fact that Kansas requires the teaching of creationism are a few examples. The Crusades and the Jihad are more examples. Religious people can’t keep to themselves and instead they go out and blow up buildings and sack Jerusalem for the five hundredth time. They go and teach my children that if homosexuality is condoned, they will burn in hell. This is unacceptable and as long as the “moderate” theists who don’t directly advocate this shelter the Pat Robertsons who state that New Orleans drowned because of Mardi Gras’ rampant sexual tones and the Osama Bin Ladens who want Islam to take over the world, they are in my crossfires.</p>
<p>I believe there are a million invisible elephants in my backyard. if I told anyone that, I’d be hauled off to a mental institution. Nobody has proved it and nobody has disproved it but is it still acceptable for me to do this? Now you’re going to say that I can believe it because it doesn’t hurt anyone and that it has no effect on others.</p>
<p>But what if I told you I have this invisible man in the sky who cant be proven or disproven. He tells me to kill homosexuals. He tells me to stone adulterers. He tells me that the Earth is 6000 years old. He tells me to pay his representatives 10% of my income and he tells me to believe in him unquestionably. He tells me to spread belief in him using violence if necessary. He tells me that killing innocents is okay if they don’t believe in him. He tells me that its okay to kill innocent first borns because their parents oppress your people.</p>
<p>Is that really me not harming anyone? Is that a “personal” issue or is that truly a problem for society?</p>
<p>Of course people are ABLE to believe what they want. I would never ever advocate the BANNING of religion. I merely state that with enough education, theists will necessarily become atheists since education and rational thought lead to the path of atheism. I’m giving arguments as to why atheism is acceptable and even the most “correct” way to look at the universe.</p>
<p>Except most religious people don’t kill homosexuals, stone adulterers, etc. etc. You and many other atheists have this view of religion that you resort to attacking, and it simply isn’t the reality for most of the religious population, never mind what it may say in that religion’s scripture.</p>
<p>I’m agnostic, but if you’re intent is for a proper debate, don’t resort to straw man arguments and other logical fallacies. Just pointing this out, as this is something that always bothers me in these religious debates. I’m making no comment for or against your position.</p>
<p>He insinuated that religion is a dangerous institution given that people are putting their faith into something they not only cannot explicitly observe, but that also demands socially unacceptable commands. I was just using the same examples he was using to make a point.</p>
<p>This was in response to the statement that “people are free to believe what they want.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he wasn’t applying that example to religion, then his argument in that post has no value in the debate. I assumed he was trying to make a point.</p>
<p>I am stating that historically, people have rationalized many many unjust actions using religion (something that is permitted within religion) and in today’s time, shelter those who still rationalize bigotry and hate. In the middle east, adulterers are lashed and executed in the name of religion. In the United States, homosexuals can rarely run for office despite any amazing credentials they might have just because religion promotes an unsubstantiated hatred for homosexuals.</p>
<p>God tells people to commit extreme actions in the bible. These extreme actions are seldom committed in the United States but it makes less “extreme” but still bigoted actions like homophobia more acceptable.</p>
<p>Multiple people on this very forum have stated they believe the bible literally. Why then do they not subscribe to ALL its tenants? At the very least, the Christian (and Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Judaic, etc.) versions of God are detrimental to society, not even mentioning the fact that they are false.</p>
<p>As long as people believe that the FINAL ARBITER of what is right and wrong thinks bigotry is justified, they themselves live their lives according to his creed. They sometimes subscribe to his words verbatim (like in the Middle East) or sometimes they go for the spirit of his words (something still bigoted).</p>
<p>If the [bold] ultimate authority [/bold] of right and wrong decides that Sodom and Gomorrah must burn, within the framework of religion, there is very little debate and very little room to have ones own opinion. Religion brings close minded thinking to the table and promotes bigotry and hate.</p>
<p>This isnt even speaking of the locally unifying force that religion tends to be that excludes nonbelievers and creates enemies of people.</p>
<p>If I cut quotes from evolutionists’ writings without regard to context, then I could make them look very bad also.</p>
<p>But I do not pick and choose the verses I follow. If I did, I could pick and choose verses like the ones you list and create the Inquisition. But those who truly understand the bible will read verses like John 8:7, Acts 10:15, and the entire book of Hebrews. These make it quite clear that since the sacrifice of Jesus we are no longer bound by the old law. The law was “only a shadow” and “not the realities themselves.” The Law of Moses’s time is over, and we are no longer living under its burden.</p>
<p>If said many times that the young earth theory is not required by the bible. But…</p>
<p>Do you really think that 1000 years isn’t enough time for civilization? Do the math:</p>
<p>Adam and Eve.</p>
<p>They have children… You can accept the long ages given in the bible, in which case each generation had time to have a very large number of children, or if you reject that, then figure about 20 years to a generation. This is actually pretty generous. Figure 6 kids per family. This is probably drastically low. After 1000 years, one family could populate an entire planet with ancient civilizations, even assuming that half of the population dies before having children.</p>
<p>Consider any 1000 year period in recorded history. Multiple civilizations will have come and gone in that time.</p>
<p>Why do you assume that the unknown being is completely natural? Both are plausible, yet you go straight to the natural one. Unlike me, you don’t even grant the possibility of the other option, or of intelligent persons choosing it.</p>
<p>Interesting analogy. But if we saw hints that we were living in the Matrix, we’d be wise to prepare for the possibility that we may have to survive outside of it someday.</p>