Things about atheism that should be self-evident.

[BulletProof]

The same fucking god that is in your Bible!!!!!

You seem unhinged arguing about something you know doesn't exist.

The moron does seem unhinged about something he doesn't believe exists. But, what exposes him for being dumb is that he thinks he can define a word however he wants and that his arbitrary and irrelevant definition applies to how other people use the word.

 

[Meriweather]

Even if I grant you that creationist Christians are in the minority, 25% of the country (more) is still a force. As evidenced by the ongoing lawsuits. So you can't dismiss this solely on the grounds of a few percentage points. Either way, I am on your side in your efforts to reform Christianity to stop opposing science on religious grounds.

There are populations less than 25% that are a force in this country. It's the way the country was set up.

I see Bible literalists and atheists on different ends of the same seesaw, with believers in the middle. One side refuses to entertain science; the other side refuses to entertain God. Both ends want those in the middle to jump onto their end of the seesaw.

When it comes to religion, one side will fight for Creationism in schools. The other side will fight a prayer being said at school. Perhaps both are being equally ridiculous. Maybe one day they will make the sensible deal: Both science and religion in our schools.

 

[Meriweather]

And if "He" existed, that would really worry me. Refer to point #1. Threatening an atheist with “going to Hell” doesn’t work. There’s no Hell and the atheist knows that. Christians spend their whole lives trying to get to a paradise after they die, avoid that other nasty place in the afterlife, and convert other people to their delusions. Atheists try to live every day to its fullest because they know there’s nothing at all after death and they value the life they’ve got.

Again, this speaks to the view of polar opposites. The majority of believers do not threaten atheists with hell. Jesus taught that he came so that we might live this life today to the fullest. To most of us living this life to the fullest is what is vital right now. It is known as the way of salvation. The byproduct of living this life to the fullest is everlasting life. I'm betting that more Catholics than atheists get threats of hell. Threats of hell don't work on us, either, so here you stand with the majority of Christians. Join those of us who are used to it. Shrug it off.

 

[Meriweather]

Theists seek to compel conformity, as theism is fundamentally authoritarian.

Being free from faith is the opposite of theism: absent religious doctrine and dogma there is no need or desire to compel conformity.

To quote you, "Actually not." Throughout Church history, many of our most famous Saints disagreed with each other. In the Catholic Church there is a wide variety of positions on just about everything. Certainly, there are issues that have no wiggle room if one wishes to embrace Catholic belief. On many others, not so much.

 

[Meriweather]

False dilemma fallacy.

Because religion is a creation of man it’s perfectly appropriate and warranted for those free from faith to address issues of religion.

Belief in a ‘god’ that doesn’t exist is not a prerequisite to discuss that which is a creation of man.

Religion is no more a creation of man than science is a creation of man. Both are observations of mankind. Science is based on physical life; religion has its basis in spiritual or philosophical life.

Meanwhile, why not discuss creation of man with scientists on a science forum? Why come to a religion forum?

 

[Czernobog]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

Why can I not be an atheist and believe in the laws of physics? I think physics drives everything. Physics -> chemistry -> biology -> life -> man -> religion

You were fine right up until you hit religion. Sorry, physics does not dovetail with religion. So, my question would be when the latter contradicts the former, which do you go with?

Obviously, science. And I guess you missed the point I was making - religion is a product of man's mind.

And cannot peacefully co-exist with science. Inevitably the former will make claims that force it into conflict with the latter. The the "Christian" scientist must either make doctrinal concessions "How long is a day to God?" in order to shoehorn his religion into his science, or he must deny what science is telling him is true.

 

[Czernobog]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

Why can I not be an atheist and believe in the laws of physics? I think physics drives everything. Physics -> chemistry -> biology -> life -> man -> religion

You were fine right up until you hit religion. Sorry, physics does not dovetail with religion. So, my question would be when the latter contradicts the former, which do you go with?

I know plenty of scientists who also believe in God. A few are creationists, though with a twist. When i asked them if the world was truly only 6,000 years old in their belief system they responded with " how long is a day in God time?" They fully acknowledge the Laws of physics, that the world operates via cause and effect, etc. etc. etc.

Your assertion that science and religion can't coexist is absurd.

See, that's what I'm talking about. That is an attempt to subvert rational science in order to shoehorn in your religion. "How long is a day in 'God' time?" Same as it is in everyone else time - 24 hours. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that "God" is an alien who lives on another planet whose rotation on its axis is slower than ours. And, even then, "God" time would still exist relative to ours, so when interacting with Earth, it would still be a 24-hour cycle. That's what a day is. It is the amount of time it takes for a planet to make a full rotation on its axis.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...by co-exist, I mean that you can't pretend to be both a scientist, and religious. It is a foregone conclusion that, sooner or later, the two will contradict one another. Then you're going to have to choose which one you are - a scientist, or a theist.

I really have to disagree with you on that one. Someone I know well is a staunch Southern Baptist, a believer in Jesus Christ as his savior, and has a PhD in physics. He has had no difficulty being both a scientist and a theist.

And how does he explain, with physics, and science...oh, I dunno...alchemy (turning water to wine), or walking on water, or feeding thousands with five fish, or, here's a big one...getting up after being dead for three days. How does your friend explain a zombie with physics, and science.

See. Either he just "shuts off" his rational brain, and ignores all of those things that science dictates simply can. not. happen, or he is lying to himself when he says he 'believes".

 

[Czernobog]

The same fucking god that is in your Bible!!!!!

You seem unhinged arguing about something you know doesn't exist.

The moron does seem unhinged about something he doesn't believe exists. But, what exposes him for being dumb is that he thinks he can define a word however he wants and that his arbitrary and irrelevant definition applies to how other people use the word.

...says the imbecile who doesn't know that Judaism is a religion.

 

[Czernobog]

And if "He" existed, that would really worry me. Refer to point #1. Threatening an atheist with “going to Hell” doesn’t work. There’s no Hell and the atheist knows that. Christians spend their whole lives trying to get to a paradise after they die, avoid that other nasty place in the afterlife, and convert other people to their delusions. Atheists try to live every day to its fullest because they know there’s nothing at all after death and they value the life they’ve got.

Again, this speaks to the view of polar opposites. The majority of believers do not threaten atheists with hell. Jesus taught that he came so that we might live this life today to the fullest. To most of us living this life to the fullest is what is vital right now. It is known as the way of salvation. The byproduct of living this life to the fullest is everlasting life. I'm betting that more Catholics than atheists get threats of hell. Threats of hell don't work on us, either, so here you stand with the majority of Christians. Join those of us who are used to it. Shrug it off.

LOL!!! That is actually funny!!!!!!

 

[BreezeWood]

Well...by co-exist, I mean that you can't pretend to be both a scientist, and religious. It is a foregone conclusion that, sooner or later, the two will contradict one another. Then you're going to have to choose which one you are - a scientist, or a theist.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein

Would you care to show me the religion in his equations? Of course not, because it isn't there .

As long as everyone is cool with that objective truth, there's no problem....right? Where is the struggle, between science and theism? There is none. Only religious dogma gets in the way.

.

Would you care to show me the religion in his equations? Of course not, because it isn't there .

you have no way of knowing what the equations will eventually expose for their origin and will be more likely physiological than inert.

As long as everyone is cool with that objective truth, there's no problem....right? Where is the struggle, between science and theism? There is none. Only religious dogma gets in the way.

Only religious dogma gets in the way ...

the religious dogma created and used by certain individuals have been obstacles in all fields of endevour, particularly those attracted to the desert religions but that was not the case in antiquity when there arose a need for solutions atheism is incapable to resolve simply by the complexity of the issues that exist - 1+1 does not solve issues it only gives an answer, solutions are organic.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Well...by co-exist, I mean that you can't pretend to be both a scientist, and religious. It is a foregone conclusion that, sooner or later, the two will contradict one another. Then you're going to have to choose which one you are - a scientist, or a theist.

I really have to disagree with you on that one. Someone I know well is a staunch Southern Baptist, a believer in Jesus Christ as his savior, and has a PhD in physics. He has had no difficulty being both a scientist and a theist.

And how does he explain, with physics, and science...oh, I dunno...alchemy (turning water to wine), or walking on water, or feeding thousands with five fish, or, here's a big one...getting up after being dead for three days. How does your friend explain a zombie with physics, and science.

See. Either he just "shuts off" his rational brain, and ignores all of those things that science dictates simply can. not. happen, or he is lying to himself when he says he 'believes".

Correct. He ignores those things. He is intelligent and rational enough to discount a lot of things.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...by co-exist, I mean that you can't pretend to be both a scientist, and religious. It is a foregone conclusion that, sooner or later, the two will contradict one another. Then you're going to have to choose which one you are - a scientist, or a theist.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”—Albert Einstein

Would you care to show me the religion in his equations? Of course not, because it isn't there .

As long as everyone is cool with that objective truth, there's no problem....right? Where is the struggle, between science and theism? There is none. Only religious dogma gets in the way.

.

Would you care to show me the religion in his equations? Of course not, because it isn't there .

you have no way of knowing what the equations will eventually expose for their origin and will be more likely physiological than inert.

As long as everyone is cool with that objective truth, there's no problem....right? Where is the struggle, between science and theism? There is none. Only religious dogma gets in the way.

Only religious dogma gets in the way ...

the religious dogma created and used by certain individuals have been obstacles in all fields of endevour, particularly those attracted to the desert religions but that was not the case in antiquity when there arose a need for solutions atheism is incapable to resolve simply by the complexity of the issues that exist - 1+1 does not solve issues it only gives an answer, solutions are organic.

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point. However, it can be, and has been, demonstrated that religion is certainly not the path to morality. Slavery, objectification of women, rape mentality, genocide...these are all the moral principles that are extolled, demonstrated, and enshrined in the holy books of pretty much every religion.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...by co-exist, I mean that you can't pretend to be both a scientist, and religious. It is a foregone conclusion that, sooner or later, the two will contradict one another. Then you're going to have to choose which one you are - a scientist, or a theist.

I really have to disagree with you on that one. Someone I know well is a staunch Southern Baptist, a believer in Jesus Christ as his savior, and has a PhD in physics. He has had no difficulty being both a scientist and a theist.

And how does he explain, with physics, and science...oh, I dunno...alchemy (turning water to wine), or walking on water, or feeding thousands with five fish, or, here's a big one...getting up after being dead for three days. How does your friend explain a zombie with physics, and science.

See. Either he just "shuts off" his rational brain, and ignores all of those things that science dictates simply can. not. happen, or he is lying to himself when he says he 'believes".

Correct. He ignores those things. He is intelligent and rational enough to discount a lot of things.

But "those things" are central to Christianity, in general, and to the Southern Baptist denomination, in particular. Especially the, "Jesus got up, after being dead for three days" thing. So he proves my very point. In order to be a scientist, he is being a poor Christian. He ignores/denies the very foundation of the religion.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Well...by co-exist, I mean that you can't pretend to be both a scientist, and religious. It is a foregone conclusion that, sooner or later, the two will contradict one another. Then you're going to have to choose which one you are - a scientist, or a theist.

I really have to disagree with you on that one. Someone I know well is a staunch Southern Baptist, a believer in Jesus Christ as his savior, and has a PhD in physics. He has had no difficulty being both a scientist and a theist.

And how does he explain, with physics, and science...oh, I dunno...alchemy (turning water to wine), or walking on water, or feeding thousands with five fish, or, here's a big one...getting up after being dead for three days. How does your friend explain a zombie with physics, and science.

See. Either he just "shuts off" his rational brain, and ignores all of those things that science dictates simply can. not. happen, or he is lying to himself when he says he 'believes".

Correct. He ignores those things. He is intelligent and rational enough to discount a lot of things.

But "those things" are central to Christianity, in general, and to the Southern Baptist denomination, in particular. Especially the, "Jesus got up, after being dead for three days" thing. So he proves my very point. In order to be a scientist, he is being a poor Christian. He ignores/denies the very foundation of the religion.

I don't profess to be a Christian, but I assume someone that does has a broad range of things they can believe in. If my friend discounts the virgin birth and rising from the dead, that is up to him. If he lives by Christian principles, is honest, charitable, and lives a good life, that is enough for me.

And that is it for me on this thread.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...by co-exist, I mean that you can't pretend to be both a scientist, and religious. It is a foregone conclusion that, sooner or later, the two will contradict one another. Then you're going to have to choose which one you are - a scientist, or a theist.

I really have to disagree with you on that one. Someone I know well is a staunch Southern Baptist, a believer in Jesus Christ as his savior, and has a PhD in physics. He has had no difficulty being both a scientist and a theist.

And how does he explain, with physics, and science...oh, I dunno...alchemy (turning water to wine), or walking on water, or feeding thousands with five fish, or, here's a big one...getting up after being dead for three days. How does your friend explain a zombie with physics, and science.

See. Either he just "shuts off" his rational brain, and ignores all of those things that science dictates simply can. not. happen, or he is lying to himself when he says he 'believes".

Correct. He ignores those things. He is intelligent and rational enough to discount a lot of things.

But "those things" are central to Christianity, in general, and to the Southern Baptist denomination, in particular. Especially the, "Jesus got up, after being dead for three days" thing. So he proves my very point. In order to be a scientist, he is being a poor Christian. He ignores/denies the very foundation of the religion.

I don't profess to be a Christian, but I assume someone that does has a broad range of things they can believe in. If my friend discounts the virgin birth and rising from the dead, that is up to him. If he lives by Christian principles, is honest, charitable, and lives a good life, that is enough for me.

And that is it for me on this thread.

Perhaps, but the one common thread is that the guy who started it all died, was put in the ground dead, and got up three days later. It's kinda the whole basis for Christianity, regardless of denomination. So, if a guy says, "Yeah, I'm a Christian, but I don't buy that whole resurrection thing, because science says that couldn't happen," then I would really like him to explain on what basis he calls himself a Christian...

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Even if I grant you that creationist Christians are in the minority, 25% of the country (more) is still a force. As evidenced by the ongoing lawsuits. So you can't dismiss this solely on the grounds of a few percentage points. Either way, I am on your side in your efforts to reform Christianity to stop opposing science on religious grounds.

There are populations less than 25% that are a force in this country. It's the way the country was set up.

I see Bible literalists and atheists on different ends of the same seesaw, with believers in the middle. One side refuses to entertain science; the other side refuses to entertain God. Both ends want those in the middle to jump onto their end of the seesaw.

When it comes to religion, one side will fight for Creationism in schools. The other side will fight a prayer being said at school. Perhaps both are being equally ridiculous. Maybe one day they will make the sensible deal: Both science and religion in our schools.

Stop tap dancing. There ahould be no religion in science class, period. And there should be no state-sponsored religion in any school, ever. A class on religions across the world? Okay, because that is teaching the tenets of various religions. It is not teaching that any of them are true. In fact, such a class would help people realize that the bullshit they have been hearing since theyvwere little is just one of many similar treasure troves of bullshit.

 

[westwall]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

Why can I not be an atheist and believe in the laws of physics? I think physics drives everything. Physics -> chemistry -> biology -> life -> man -> religion

You were fine right up until you hit religion. Sorry, physics does not dovetail with religion. So, my question would be when the latter contradicts the former, which do you go with?

I know plenty of scientists who also believe in God. A few are creationists, though with a twist. When i asked them if the world was truly only 6,000 years old in their belief system they responded with " how long is a day in God time?" They fully acknowledge the Laws of physics, that the world operates via cause and effect, etc. etc. etc.

Your assertion that science and religion can't coexist is absurd.

See, that's what I'm talking about. That is an attempt to subvert rational science in order to shoehorn in your religion. "How long is a day in 'God' time?" Same as it is in everyone else time - 24 hours. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that "God" is an alien who lives on another planet whose rotation on its axis is slower than ours. And, even then, "God" time would still exist relative to ours, so when interacting with Earth, it would still be a 24-hour cycle. That's what a day is. It is the amount of time it takes for a planet to make a full rotation on its axis.

I am agnostic silly boy. I am also a scientist (a real one) so have to deal with the religious and the atheists among the scientific community. As a whole i would much rather deal with the religious ones as they are still filled with the wonder of discovery. The atheists generally aren't. The atheists are also in general assholes.

 

[Czernobog]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

Why can I not be an atheist and believe in the laws of physics? I think physics drives everything. Physics -> chemistry -> biology -> life -> man -> religion

You were fine right up until you hit religion. Sorry, physics does not dovetail with religion. So, my question would be when the latter contradicts the former, which do you go with?

I know plenty of scientists who also believe in God. A few are creationists, though with a twist. When i asked them if the world was truly only 6,000 years old in their belief system they responded with " how long is a day in God time?" They fully acknowledge the Laws of physics, that the world operates via cause and effect, etc. etc. etc.

Your assertion that science and religion can't coexist is absurd.

See, that's what I'm talking about. That is an attempt to subvert rational science in order to shoehorn in your religion. "How long is a day in 'God' time?" Same as it is in everyone else time - 24 hours. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that "God" is an alien who lives on another planet whose rotation on its axis is slower than ours. And, even then, "God" time would still exist relative to ours, so when interacting with Earth, it would still be a 24-hour cycle. That's what a day is. It is the amount of time it takes for a planet to make a full rotation on its axis.

I am agnostic silly boy. I am also a scientist (a real one) so have to deal with the religious and the atheists among the scientific community. As a whole i would much rather deal with the religious ones as they are still filled with the wonder of discovery. The atheists generally aren't. The atheists are also in general assholes.

That was a general "you", not you specifically. I was demonstrating the irrational twisting of reason being used by those who ask that silly question to try and reconcile their science with their religion. And, I'd be curious to know what atheists you've been dealing with. I don't know any atheist/scientist that doesn't act like a giddy school kid every time they make some new discovery. The coolest thing that aould happen for an atheist/scientist is to find something new, and be faced with the question, "Well, why did that happen?" Unlike the theist, who, instead of wanting to find an answer, and just says, "God did it," every scientist I have ever met has responded with, "I dunno. Let's find out!"

 

[westwall]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists – ‘god’ exists as a creation of man, a concept, a metaphor for the good humans are capable of.

And being free from faith is neither a ‘religion’ nor a ‘belief’ – to acknowledge the fact there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists has nothing to do with ‘faith’ or ‘belief.’

Theism is the aberration, an authoritarian contrivance born of fear and arrogance.

If theism were the aberration there wouldn't be over 10,000 years of recorded history where man pays homage to a God. No, theism is the norm. The atheistic view that anyone who believes in God is stupid is the arrogance of man showing through. Primitive man had no way of describing the wondrous things he witnessed, so he came up with the various Gods to help explain them. It is MAN who twists religion to his own ends.

Religion in general is not responsible for the evils that man does in the "name of religion". Look at the religion that violent asshole claims to represent and they are almost always diametrically opposed.