<p>
[quote]
And to the athiests- If you don't believe in anything, where do your morals come from? Why do you live from day to day? Just to please youself? And if you just live for selfish reasons, what happens when you're dead? Why would your life be worth living? i don't get how athiests still pretend to be moral--If you don't belieive in God, there's nothing.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>When we're dead, our body slowly decomposes into the soil and is converted into organic matter to be reused by plants in the local ecosystem.</p></li>
<li><p>Life is worth living because it's life. Why does there need to be an afterlife for life to be worth something? Athiests enjoy life for what it is. We live day to day because we enjoy our lives, and find it fulfilling. Humans give it meaning, not God. </p></li>
<li><p>Our morals come from not being being a bunch of ****<strong><em>s. Civilization, law, government, and order help to maintain it, as does the desire for friendships and social relations. Not *</em></strong>ing people over helps to maintain those relations. Why does someone have to believe in God to have morals?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Btw, we believe in many things, just not God. We believe in our friends, and our families for one, since they exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I prefer to put my faith in God than in Big Bang or some weird string/multi-dimensional theory. Science claims to disprove God, but it disproves everything within science as well. Atheists like to put their trust in science, saying that it is logical and for smart people, but the last time I checked, there is more open loops in Science than religion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Science, unlike religion, does not "preach" the absolute truth. We call gravity a theory for a reason - because all science can be logically and rationally refuted. That in itself is logical. Faith is a gap which can't be bridged by logic. Many people mistake inductive reasoning for faith when it comes to scientific research.</p>
<p>Science does not claim "to disprove God". God is not in the realm of science. Formal science takes an agnostic view of God - because it's not a testable or falsifiable hypothesis, it can be neither proven nor disproven. (Although I'll concede that many athiests do not follow this view in practice, myself included at times)</p>
<p>Of course there are more open loops in science. First of all, science is an ongoing process. Scientists are constantly attempting to explain the universe, and over the last millennium or so, have made some pretty good progress (this is an understatement). Is there a cure for AIDS or cancer yet? Nope. Will there be in the future? Probably, once scientific knowledge is advanced even more. If you need heart bypass surgery, who are you going to trust your life to, the team of expert surgeons, or God? </p>
<p>Second, string-theory is not considered science by many physicists, since there is no evidence to support it, so don't use that and hope to score any points.</p>
<p>And third, that's a pretty cheap shot to take, considering science can't play the "God moves in mysterious ways" card every time something weird happens. </p>
<p>"Science claims to disprove God, but it disproves everything within science as well."</p>
<p>Does science disprove penicillin, which probably saved millions of lives since its discovery? Does science disprove insulin, which my Dad depends on for medical treatment? Does it disprove running water and electricity? Does it disprove your iPod and your cellphone? Does it disprove every car, ship, and plane out there? Does it disprove pretty much every single thing in modern society? No offense, but that's a pretty ****ing stupid thing to say. It's one thing to say evolution isn't real, or evolution is just God's plan for his creatures (sure I can live with that, although I won't agree), but to lay this blanket statement on science as a whole is just incredible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Similarly, if time had an infinite beginning, we wouldn't be here. So time must have had a beginning, and matter and space accompany time. So before matter, space, and time, there had to be something. People like the big bang theory but it's about as scientifically testable as creation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Physicists can describe the beginning of the universe until t = 0.000000 ... 0000001 seconds. That's a tad more credible than creation, although certainly not completely scientifically sound. (It is a theory, not fact, as is all science). The big bang is not the absolute truth, and no scientists claim it to be, so do not assume that atheists blindly believe in this theory.</p>