Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Very well put by Political Chic. It's interesting that, when faced with death, non-believers have a way of crying out to God for mercy, a cure, a miracle, anything to spare them from impending death.
I also think it's a convenience to not believe when someone wants to do something that's against a moral code - it relieves them of any feeling of guilt - "if it feels good, do it." God is an authority figure and they rebel against authority.
Theists and atheists are equally as deluded as each other. Neither can prove their position. Hence, the only logical, intelligent path is agnosticism in which nothing either way has yet to be proven but I am open to proof of either position at any time if some should become available.
Be fair. It takes time and effort to surf the internet looking for just the right tidbits to copy and paste together into a monumental piece of bait. Calling Polly a mere squirrel is completely overlooking the energy she puts into her trolling and logical fallacies, if not her proofreading. Give the poor girl some credit where it's due.
squirrels collect nuts. they find them everywhere, and hoard them. then they think they produced the nuts. and are mighty proud. of "their" nuts.
but the proof of the nuts is in the eating of said nuts.
to survive the winter, hehehe.
too bad that in polly's case the collected nuts are numb, and/or full of mold and worms.
or aren't nuts at all but scat, pellets and pebbles.
Hate to tell you this, L.K. But our dear Polly doesn't collect nuts. She IS nuts.
Theists and atheists are equally as deluded as each other. Neither can prove their position. Hence, the only logical, intelligent path is agnosticism in which nothing either way has yet to be proven but I am open to proof of either position at any time if some should become available.
I believe there is no god.
I belive many things on the basis of evidence.
If the evidence changes what I believe changes.
If evidence for the exsistance of god emerged then I would believe in god.
Agnostics think it is unknowable.
Science is NOT faith.
Atheism is NOT a religion.
And Stupididy is NOT a word. (At least not yet)
Science is NOT faith.
Atheism is NOT a religion.
And Stupididy is NOT a word. (At least not yet)
Pretty empty rebuttal to
I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.
What neo-creationists get right - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences
Theists and atheists are equally as deluded as each other. Neither can prove their position. Hence, the only logical, intelligent path is agnosticism in which nothing either way has yet to be proven but I am open to proof of either position at any time if some should become available.
I believe there is no god.
I belive many things on the basis of evidence.
If the evidence changes what I believe changes.
If evidence for the exsistance of god emerged then I would believe in god.
Agnostics think it is unknowable.
Not this one. Agnostic means you don't know either way and so far take no position.
You're like someone who says, gravity didn't exist until someone proved its existence. I'm saying, prove something either way and I'll start paying attention. You can't at this point prove that god doesn't exist just because we are at a stage in human development where we can't prove that.
Some religious people seem UNABLE to truely understand what the non believers believe.
I believe there is no god.
I belive many things on the basis of evidence.
If the evidence changes what I believe changes.
If evidence for the exsistance of god emerged then I would believe in god.
Agnostics think it is unknowable.
Not this one. Agnostic means you don't know either way and so far take no position.
You're like someone who says, gravity didn't exist until someone proved its existence. I'm saying, prove something either way and I'll start paying attention. You can't at this point prove that god doesn't exist just because we are at a stage in human development where we can't prove that.
Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com
ag·nos·tic   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled
[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Maybe you dont know what an agnostic is.
Political Chic, if religion is such a good thing, what's your POV on Islam? Are American Muslims more desirable in your world than atheists? What about American Jews? American Buddists?
Most people who write drivel like the Op secretly (or not so secretly) believe only christianity should be contemplated when discussing religion. Are you one of these intellectually dishonest types?
Political Chic, if religion is such a good thing, what's your POV on Islam? Are American Muslims more desirable in your world than atheists? What about American Jews? American Buddists?
Most people who write drivel like the Op secretly (or not so secretly) believe only christianity should be contemplated when discussing religion. Are you one of these intellectually dishonest types?
Yep and Islam believes in the same god that Jews and Christians do.
Granny prove that ALL nonbelievers call out for God in the end?
Our friend U2 seems unable to understand that the anti-religion thesis requires as much faith as the religious thesis...
1. Believer or non-believer the first step is to be clear as to what the credible options are, and this is based on what your definition of truth is, your epistemology, as ideas must be judged in light of this definition.
2. In the West, the dichotomy between empirical truth and morality, or values, began with the scientific revolution, impressive as it was, so much so that many thinkers elevated empirical science to the sole source of truth.
a. Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses: what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Where, then do we find moral truths? Clearly, under such a definition, values and morals could not be truths, but simply emotions, feelings.
3. Empiricist philosopher David Hume reasoned this way: if knowledge is based on sensations, then morality, too, must come from sensations, i.e. pain or pleasure, or, as he put it, a matter of taste and sentiment, Hume claims then, that moral distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment. Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
a. This view reduces morality to personal taste: Whatever works for you.
b. This represented a sea change in Western thinking, which ran counter to the traditional view of truth as covering both the natural world and the moral order.
c. Henceforth, the natural world, observed via the senses, qualified as genuine knowledge. But morality and values, neither perceived through the senses, are merely subjective feelings: principles, rather than transcendent truths, became simply preferences. Here is the division between science and religion.
4. This division of truth is known as the fact/value split, or the divided concept of truth. Simply stated, it means that objective knowledge is possible only in the realm of empirical facts.
a. A survey released yesterday posits the idea that the United States -- already one of the most religious nations in the developed world -- may be even less secular than previously suspected. Americans May Be More Religious Than They Realize - washingtonpost.com
b. . While the vast majority of Americans recognize a higher power, and state that they regularly pray, and, therefore, acceptance of an invisible spiritual world, they also, syncretically, accept the empirical definition of truth. In short, they accept a secular worldview without realizing it.
c. The consistent view would be to simply challenge the use of the definition, since the separation of facts from values is the basis for the secularization of much of Western thinking.
d. This kind of relationship with religion is not, it seems, unusual. Peter Lipton, a Cambridge philosopher, spoke of his struggle to be a practicing Jew in spite of his lack of belief in a supernatural God. "I stand in my synagogue and pray to God and have an intense relationship with God, and yet I don't believe in God," Lipton confessed with a rueful grin. Clash in Cambridge: Scientific American
e. How about an earlier definition, such as the one earlier Greeks used as the principle that unifies the world into an orderly cosmos, as opposed to randomness and chaos. The stoic, Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. Logos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept. He urges us to pay attention to the logos, which "governs all things" Logos
For a far better explanation, one should pick up a copy of "Saving Leonardo," by Nancy Pearcy
If science is elevated to the level of God, it's up those that subscribe to it to say so, not for others to label their beliefs as faith in the way religion is faith.
If science is elevated to the level of God, it's up those that subscribe to it to say so, not for others to label their beliefs as faith in the way religion is faith.
But that would be rational. And not controlling, manipulative, vindictive and condescending. What kind of bait would it make?
Can't have that.
If science is elevated to the level of God, it's up those that subscribe to it to say so, not for others to label their beliefs as faith in the way religion is faith.
Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith. Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip
You might find Johnson's thesis impressive...try it.
The premise that it takes more brains to belong to a religion is just as flawed as the premise that it takes more brains to be an atheist, Political Chic. The sort of spiritual quest someone like Sky Dancer undertook might take more brains, but what is required to knee-jerk choose as an adult to belong to the faith you were raised in?
Religion and spirituality address certain emotional needs of humans, in various ways depending upon that human. We are never going to find a cure for AIDS just by praying about it. And asserting that evolution is a lie "because the Bible says so" just makes the speaker look foolish. Religion should confine itself to what it does best -- teaching ethics to its adherents -- and not attempt to change the US into a theocracy.
But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.
