No, I am explaining the difference between religion and science and why it is important to not confuse the two. Then do you believe that a scientific test can be set up to prove or disprove God?
Humor me then. Can you describe such a test? Also keep in mind I am not speaking of proving the veracity of the Bible or any particular holy book but an omnipotent being responsible for the creation of the Universe.
13 flaws to atheism. (Written by Richard Dawkins) At the time of this writing, approximately ten percent of the world's population is atheistic, that is, they don't belive in the existence of a Supreme Being. Depending on where you live, the odds of your running into an atheist might be greater or less that that, and the chances that you will know that quality about him will probably be even smaller. Atheism, like conservatism or liberalism, is a private decision, and unless he has a reason to let you know his position on the subject, he's perfectly within his rights to keep the matter to himself. Or he might be among those who feel the need to openly express their atheism, whether it be for the purpose of constructively sharing ideas or trying to convince you to change your own beliefs. Over the past five years, I've spent a considerable portion of my free time discussing and debating politics and religion on Internet message boards. During such exchanges, I have learned that atheists tend to gravitate toward a collection of basic arguments, both offensive and defensive, that they feel best supports their conclusion that there is no God. On the surface, some of these arguments appear quite good and even potentially convincing. But on closer examination, they each fall apart, usually of their own weight. Below is a short list of arguments that atheists often use when either defending their own belief system or criticising those of Christians. Each is followed by my own counter-argument, explaining why their reasoning-and ultimately their conclusion about God-is flawed. 1. "Atheism isn't a belief, but the lack of a belief." This is what I call the "single definition" of atheism. It is the cornerstone of most atheistic defenses. Atheists like to use this definition because they feel that it protects them from certain criticisms from Christians and other theists. For example, if atheism is a lack of a belief, then atheists can't be criticized for believing anything. This simple idea is a powerful weapon for atheists on message boards. It is, however, wrong. Since there is (currently) no scientifically verifiable evidence to support either side of the God question, both theism and atheism have to be called beliefs. Just as theism is a belief that there is a God, atheism is the belief that there isn't. Atheism, therefore, is not immune to the criticisms that other belief systems might draw. 2. "Atheism is not a-or has no-philosophy." This is not true. Atheists believe that there is no God. Therefore, they believe that all decisions made by the individual, the family and the government should be made without regard to religious dogma. That is a philosophy. This is true regardless of anecdotal incidents when atheists, for ulterior motives, say that it's okay for certain people to believe in God, e.g., "I'm in favor of the citizens of such-and-such country believing in God if it will keep them from slaughtering each other." These are actually exceptions that prove the rule, since they are always under unusual circumstances. The basic atheistic philosophy remains intact. Even when an atheist says, "I don't care if other people believe in God or not," he's merely expressing an isolationist viewpoint toward a philosophy that he still applies to himself. Otherwise, he wouldn't be an atheist, for no atheist will follow any religious dogma. 3. "Atheism is supported by science." Again, this is not true. Because no scientifically verifiable evidence exists on either side of the God question, science can't even address the issue, let alone reach any conclusion. 4. "Atheism is supported by logic." Not only is this wrong, just the opposite is true. In logic, it's impossible to prove a negative, that is, prove that a God Who Can Do Anything doesn't exist. When someone claims he is an atheist, he is in effect claiming to have proven a negative (at least to himself)-which is a logical impossibility. In terms of pure logic, the only viable alternative to theism is actually agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But atheism runs counter to logic. 5. "The burden of proof is on theists." No, it isn't. While the burden of proof might vary depending on whether you're talking about science or law, in almost all instances, the burden of proof lies with the deviation from the norm. A man who claims he can run a mile in one minute-while the world's best atheletes can't break the three-minute mark-has the burden of proving that he can do it. Right now, about 90% of the world's population believes there is a Supreme Being. Plus, throughout known history-even back to the days of the caveman-humans have believed in some sort of God. These points are enough to clearly establish theism as the normal state. It is therefore up to atheists to make their case for the deviation. 6. "There is no evidence to support a belief in God." Yes, there is. Testimonial evidence abounds. Millions claim that God has touched their hearts, cured their illnesses and improved their lives. Atheists refuse to acknowledge this evidence, because they accept only scientifically verifiable evidence. This is a restriction that they have chosen to place upon themselves, yet they demand that others do the same thing, which is ridiculous. Atheists say that human testimony can't be trusted because human senses can't be trusted. The fact that this twisted logic effectively discounts all life experiences doesn't seem to phase atheists in the least. It's yet another example of how atheism shuts down the mind. 7. "Theists should believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn." This is in reference to something called the Invisible Pink Unicorn Argument, an amusing little ditty that atheists enjoy bringing up from time to time. The argument says that, since theists have no evidence that God exists, then they can't discount the existence of other "fictitious" Gods, such as-you guessed it-the Invisible Pink Unicorn. On closer examination, this argument actually goes against atheists. As I mentioned above, theists accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God. Literally millions of people believe in God, pray to Him, worship Him, and claim that He has cured their illnesses and changed their lives. This can't be said of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so theists don't believe in it. On the other hand, since atheists reject testimonial evidence, it is they-and not theists-who can't distinguish between the Unicorn and God. 8. "Religion is the major cause of war." This is historically incorrect. When it comes to the causes of war, religion comes after politics, economics, territory, natural resources and greed. World leaders who want war have often tried to rally support from their people by tying the effort to their religious beliefs, but that has nothing to do with the real reasons for their wanting to go to war. 9. "The crusades and the inquisition show that Christianity is evil." In any organization, there is the potential for corruption. Those events took place at a time when the Bible was kept under lock and key within the walls of the church. The public was not allowed to read it and had to depend on their priests to do all Biblical interpretations. This was a system that bred corruption. Dishonest priests would pander to dishonest rulers, and the result was sometimes anything but religious. I agree with historians who say that, had the Bible been available to the public, those events would've never been allowed to happen. 10. "The majority of prisoners/criminals are theists." This is a bogus argument for two reasons: (1) Since 90% of the population is theistic, it's not statistically surprising that the majority of people in any given institution would be theists. (2) The relevant surveys, taken within prison walls, are unreliable since prisoners are known to give answers that they feel will put them in the best light in the eyes of prison officials in particular and the public in general. They know it's not going to help their chances for parole if they claim to reject God, so they say they are theists. 11. "Christians have a higher divorce rate than do atheists." Atheists who use this argument think that it illustrates how hypocritical Christians are. But in reality, it shows just the opposite. Atheists believe that morality is relative, that is, there is no absolute "good" or "bad" behavior. Atheists therefore get to make up their own morals to fit whatever lifestyle they desire. For example, if an atheistic husband finds out his wife has been cheating on him, he has the option of deciding that cheating is okay. The two of them might even decide to have an "open marriage," in which both parties can freely enjoy extramarital affairs. With a morality that can be changed to suit any set of circumstances, atheists have fewer reasons to seek a divorce. Christians, on the other hand, receive their morality from God via the Bible. Those morals can't be augmented to suit the whims of the moment. Infidelity and other such offenses are taken very seriously. After doing what he can to save a marriage, sometimes a Christian literally has to choose between following God or sticking with a spouse who wants to pursue an ungodly lifestyle. Sometimes divorce is the only answer. So, it is because of high Christian values-and not hypocrisy-that the divorce rate is higher among Christians, while atheists have fewer divorces because of their changeable standards of morality. 12. "Atheists do good deeds because it's the right thing to do, while Christians do them because they want to get to heaven." Both sides of this statement are wrong. Atheists believe in the evolutionary theory that everything a person does can be linked to either the drive to survive or the drive to reproduce. And they do mean everything. They believe that a child loves his mother because the mother is needed for survival; a man loves a woman because she can help him reproduce; people do good deeds because it keeps them from being killed by those who might otherwise dislike them; etc. Christians, on the other hand, do good deeds through the compassion that is taught in the Bible. Going to heaven is simply the icing on the cake. 13. "Can your all-powerful God create a rock that is too heavy for Him to move?" If you answer, "No," then the atheist will reply, "Then your God can't create such a rock and therefore isn't all-powerful." If you answer, "Yes," then the atheist will reply, "Then your God won't be able to move the rock and therefore isn't all-powerful." I've read a few long and complicated "answers" to this apparent dilemma, but the fact is, the question itself is problematic, much like the question, "Can God run and walk at the same time?" or even the often-quoted statement, "Everything I say is a lie." (If everything I say is a lie, then that statement itself is a lie, so I must therefore be telling the truth. But if I'm telling the truth, then everything I say must be a lie, and we're back to square one.) All three examples illustrate the limitations of the human mind and its logic. The "rock" question doesn't say anything about the nature of God nor His power, but our own inability to comprehend something that is beyond our understanding.
K, i'll conduct a quick test for an omnipotent and benevolent being. Bad things happen to good people - check God refuses to stop these things from happening - check God is therefore not benevolent - check or Bad things happen to good people - check God cannot stop these things from happening - check God is therefore not omnipotent - check Seriously though, like I said, just because we don't know something now doesn't mean we'll ever know it. And every question has answer, whether we can figure it out or not. We're getting tantalizingly close to finding out where matter in our universe came from.
LOL... "(Written by Richard Dawkins)"... haha, yeah right. I could address all the points, or just save my breath and link to somebody else who has already addressed it. I'll do the latter in this case. http://atheist-seeker.blogspot.com/2005/07/theists-13-biggest-flawed.html http://atheist-seeker.blogspot.com/2005/07/theists-13-biggest-flawed_13.html
This was not written by Dawkins. Gotta love how people throw this crap out there, though. Kinda like Darwin's deathbed conversion to Christianity (which never happened).
You can believe in what you want man. If you wanna believe in no God and believe we got here by chance and that every beauty we see is by chance then that's on you. I on the other
I just saw that was on there. I just copied it from another website I didn't see that part. It obviously wasn't written by him he's non believer.
And that's fine. It's your right to believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of others (suicide bombings, gay bashing, whatever...). I have no problemo with you believing in god. I do, however, have a small problem with the idea of "faith" being used as reasonable grounds for belief. You can read a document I created when I 'lost my faith' as to why I don't believe things such as love, "the power of prayer", Intelligent Design, unexplainable things, or the Bible provide a reasonable foundation for believing in God. If you are open, I tried to write it in a non-offensive way and I think it will at least give you some interesting questions to think about. http://losingmyreligion.ca/featured-documents/why-do-you-believe-in-god/ And I found "miracles" to be another common topic brought up to support faith, so I also created a separate (once again, hopefully non-offensive) document on that: http://losingmyreligion.ca/featured-documents/miracles-answers-to-prayer-and-the-supernatural/ Basically, in the end I found that belief in God cannot be tested and it boils down to faith and faith alone: faith that ignores the flaws, faith that causes people to consider an error-ridden book from thousands of years ago as the end-all for truth and human knowledge, faith that surmises that there is an Almighty Being that loves us and wants us to live with Him for eternity even though we have never heard his voice or seen empirical evidence for his existence. In a stroke of genius, the New Testament writers made “faith” one of the greatest virtues. And why not? If there is no way of proving God’s existence, making blind faith a virtue is a great idea. It doesn’t matter what my brain says about the improbability and impossibilities of a personal God, I just need to have faith and everything will be reconciled, right? Wrong. Just because you have faith in something doesn’t mean it’s true. Every believer in every religion has faith in his or her beliefs as well a reason to substantiate the various claims of the supernatural (none of which are provable). And sure, normal Christians aren’t causing the harm and destruction that other religions or belief systems do… but that doesn’t mean they’re any more correct in their views of God, creation, and an afterlife. It is impossible to prove whether or not there is a God. It is impossible to prove the negative in this instance (“there is no God”) and there is no verifiable evidence of the positive (“there is a God”). But we do have evidence that diminishes the infallibility of the Bible, evidence that suggests prophecies were “fixed”, reason to believe that goodness would exist with or without God, reason to believe that prayer requests do not affect the end result, and on and on and on... With that said… faith alone should never be considered "enough". It needs to be grounded on something other than mystery. It needs something to support it in order to be hinged on reality - and in the case of "faith in god", the evidence just isn't there.
Well I appreciate your calm responses and it's obvious you're firm in what you believe. On the other hand I am firm in what I believe. So it's also obvious neither one of us are gonna change our minds or beliefs. What I do know however is that we both can't be right. Someone is right and someone is wrong. So end the end when it's all said and done, we will see who is right.
There are theories, but of course we do not know for sure. And even if we had a foolproof explanation as to how the universe first came into existence, a theist could always say "god did that". It is important to note that just because something is not known doesn't mean that "god" is the answer. But one thing we can do, if you are a Christian, is examine the stories in the Bible and see how they align with the evidence on Earth to determine whether or not this book should be trusted in regards to its account of how we came into existence. The Bible suggests the world is 6,000-10,000 years; scientific evidence suggests the Earth is 4.54 billion years. The Bible suggests there was a global flood approximately 4000 years ago; scientific evidence and impossibilities suggest otherwise. The Bible has previously been used to suggest that the Earth is flat (this used to be a big deal, but I know we’re past this); scientific evidence shows us that it is a globe. The Bible suggests that humans were created in God’s image – and all creationists looking at a history of hominid fossils will conclude that each skull is either human or ape – but they cannot reach a consensus on which is which due to the intermediate and transitional appearances; scientific evidence suggests that humans evolved, therefore the intermediate and transitional fossils make sense. We do live in an incredible world. The sun, stars, mountains, ocean, and animals are all great examples of this. And you attribute it to Intelligent Design. And I get it, these things seem very intricate and incredible. However, the problem with this response is that you are essentially saying “I don’t know how this could have happened, therefore there must be a Creator”. This is known as the “God of the Gaps” argument. You don’t understand how an incredible world could have come into existence on its own, so you insert a supernatural explanation. In ancient times, people did not understand many things about our world – such as rain, sunshine, earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, and so forth - and would commonly suggest that “God” was the only valid explanation. Today, however, we realize how these things occur naturally, without requiring the presence of a supernatural being. My suggestion here is that just because we don’t understand how something happened does not make it unexplainable, nor does it require a supernatural explanation. Atheists don’t need faith to disbelieve in god – we simply admit that we don’t know. We admit that science cannot prove what happened right now. But we also assert that inserting a supernatural explanation such as “God” doesn’t provide a clearer answer. Here is a great quote from Carl Sagan: “If the general picture however of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? Many cultures’ customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. If we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: Where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?” After studying the answers that religion offers, I’ve found they simply aren’t authentic. Religion doesn’t provide us with a clear understanding of our world or our universe – instead it offers answers that are unsupported by empirical evidence and encourages us to just believe anyways. This, of course, discourages us from searching deeper, finding better answers, or determining whether or not our views are correct. I don’t have all the answers - I certainly can't explain to you how we came into existence - but I am free to find and study the best ones available.
Where in the bible does it say the earth is flat? And where does it say that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old?
I said the Bible suggests the world is 6000-10,000 years old. The arguments for this date are quite common within Young Earth Creationism views, which uses the Bible to support its hypothesis. I understand this is an arguable point and there is no need to get caught on it. I'm fine if you want to say the Bible doesn't say such a thing - that's fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Also, the post I wrote has several links. I included the link that shows how people used the Bible to say the Earth is Flat. Here is the link again: http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/11651 There are verses included there to support this view - but of course with the Bible these verses can now be discounted and re-interpreted.
You missed the point, then again, I didnt mention science. What you need as an accomplished human being is common sense and the ability to doubt, science is a method that goes along with it. It's rational, it makes mistakes but it also fixes the mistake by constantly observing the known resources and evidences. There is no absolute truth when it comes to science, but faith a.k.a religion, it is the absolute truth to believers. And the worst part is, they make it out to be as if its the truth to everyone else without backing up their own claim. They make money out of it, they kill and conquer in the name of God, yet they cant verify its truthfulness. Thats why its called blinded faith, thats why its no good. Btw my blue dragon sleeps in my garage and eat cats, hes a good friend with my choc lab and german shepherd. He's never to be seen, he didnt create heaven and earth, he doesnt believe in the talking snake and he has promised me he wont build mega churches and righteously ask for 10% of my income.
