Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

yeah, but my Goddess gave birth to both your Gods! disprove THAT!

This seems to be a chicken or the egg kind of thing. I think science has finally proved that the chicken was first

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Yeah.. but we're talking about God who created everything. So how does science disprove that?

You are right-- as long as you are satisfied to worship the God of the Gaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

and

http://www.theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps

But as for any god with actual, non-nebulous details about them? Those have been on the defensive ever since the Enlightenment (and earlier.) Before Galileo, Earth was thought to be the literal center of the universe-- until it had to be handwaved away as metaphorical. Before (the general period surrounding) Darwin, the age of the Earth was thought to be a literal few thousand years-- but now it has to be handwaved away as metaphorical (except for the true nitwits who still believe in a Young Earth.) Science is constantly chipping away at things the religious once thought to be literal facts but are constantly being faced with the choice between handwaving away to metaphor or clinging to in the face of all evidence.

Yes, science and religion are in conflict. And science is winning (on the side of understanding if not on the side of popularity.)

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

This is excellent and illustrates the point. Atheists think that their point of view is the center of the world and thus they can create there own Gods ad infinitum. There's only one God and when youre ready to stop playing games we can talk about him. You know I was thinking... Kittens probably love to cuddle up with kindles, and possibly the other way round as well... just thought I'd throw that out there.

How do you know there's only one god. It's a matter of belief. Thus your moral foundation is the same.

[sweevo]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

This is excellent and illustrates the point. Atheists think that their point of view is the center of the world.

This is hilarious, coming from somebody who thinks the creator of the universe loves them, and sent his only son to this planet out of all the planets in all the galaxies.

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by sweevo

This is hilarious, coming from somebody who thinks the creator of the universe loves them, and sent his only son to this planet out of all the planets in all the galaxies.

Oh you've got a different version do you?

[sweevo]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Oh you've got a different version do you?

Yes.

Hint: there is no evidence any gods exist, let alone the one you were taught to believe in.

[ardeegee]

I just recalled this excellent video clip:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...chett-religion

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by sweevo

Science can disprove the existence of specific deities.

For example, knowing that the sun is not a first generation star disproves all gods who created the sun before all the (other) stars.

Actually all this disproves is a specific claim about the specific deity(ies) that claim such.

Originally Posted by sweevo

And "you can't disprove it" also works with pixies and leprechauns.

Agreed, the "you can't disprove it" idea is a pretty flimsy justification for any belief.

I don't see why people don't just admit they don't actually know if (insert any non-proven belief here you like) is true but I choose to believe it is because it makes me feel good.*

Cheers,
PKFFW
*Please note, as mentioned before, I'm not talking about believing in things science has "proven" are incorrect here.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

But as for any god with actual, non-nebulous details about them? Those have been on the defensive ever since the Enlightenment (and earlier.) Before Galileo, Earth was thought to be the literal center of the universe-- until it had to be handwaved away as metaphorical. Before (the general period surrounding) Darwin, the age of the Earth was thought to be a literal few thousand years-- but now it has to be handwaved away as metaphorical (except for the true nitwits who still believe in a Young Earth.) Science is constantly chipping away at things the religious once thought to be literal facts but are constantly being faced with the choice between handwaving away to metaphor or clinging to in the face of all evidence.

There is, of course, a third option....

Simply admit; "hey, we got it wrong and now with greater understanding we are happy to accommodate the known facts into our view of the world."

Which is pretty much what science does when new information proves a previous hypothesis was incorrect.

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Yes, science and religion are in conflict. And science is winning (on the side of understanding if not on the side of popularity.)

You know it has been said the cold war arms race was only won when one side walked away. Conflict breeds conflict and it is only when one side or the other walks away that the conflict will end.

Atheists could walk away from the conflict by getting on with understanding the world through science and letting the theists cling to whatever beliefs they like.

Theists could walk away from the conflict by doing one of two things;
1: Accepting scientific understanding and incorporating such into their belief systems by modifying said belief systems or;
2: Clinging to whatever beliefs they feel like but accepting that they can't, and have no right to attempt to, force others to share their views.

So which do you think is going to happen sooner?

The way it's going now I think too many people on both sides are having way too much fun reveling in the conflict to let it go.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Hamlet doesn't claim to be written by an omniscient being with a perfect message for all mankind.

From J. Huber: There are many books that are so good that once I start reading them, I can't put them down. The Bible is not one of them. How is it that God, or an author directly inspired by God, does not write as well as (for example) Michael Crichton?

.....It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when he wished to turn author—and that he did not learn it better.
..........— Friedrich (Wilhelm) Nietzsche (1844-1900), German philosopher. Beyond Good and Evil (1886), translated by Helen Zimmern.

[markbot]

religion of any kind is so transparently false that I find it almost miraculous, no pun intended, that the vast majority of people on earth still believe in one. this is why i don't mind having strong contrarian opinions at times. how can i be right and 95% of everyone else wrong? i just remember religion.

[MartinParish]

Arrrrrggghhhh!! the 300-year old debate. "Is there a God?" Goodness, children, let's settle down and stop calling each other names. At the end of the day, it's quite simple: there is no way to know whether or not there is a God. It's like arguing about what the weather will be like in West Weehawken on March 10th, 3612 AD. Not only is there no way to conclusively establish that West Weehawken will be blessed with sunshine on that fortuitous day, but it really doesn't matter either way. As long as you don't force your beliefs on me - and as long as I refrain from doing the same to you - there's really nothing to argue about.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sweevo

Again: by showing that our sun is not a first generation star, we are disproving the existence of any gods who created the sun before any other stars.

That disproves the stated attributes, not the existence of the deity.

If someone says of a woman, "she wore a blood-red dress, like a Solitaire rose," and you know Solitaires are orange, that doesn't mean she didn't exist nor that she didn't wear a dress--it may mean the description got scrambled somehow.

If someone says of a deity, "she created the sun from her hearthfire, and the sparks from it flew off and became the stars," knowing that many other stars predate the sun doesn't disprove her existence; it just means she obviously didn't make sun-and-stars as described.

Disproving the literal accuracy of myth and folklore doesn't disprove the existence of the deities in those stories.

[sweevo]

The "debate" is much older than that. Unfortunately, some religions - especially the Abrahamic ones - have a, how shall we say, rather poor track record when it comes to "live and let live".

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

You know it has been said the cold war arms race was only won when one side walked away.

Sorry, but I have no interest in following the Nevil Chamberlain theory of science. (Yep, a Godwin.) I will not bow down to idiotic superstitions, now or ever.