Newtonian physics was our truth until we experienced something that disproved them. We had faith that Newtonian physics would describe the behavior of everything, even things we hadn't seen.
We did not have "faith" (religious/blind faith), no. In fact, we kept trying to poke holes in those theories. Science isn't "truth", it's observation and formulating descriptions of those observations.
For me, my belief in God's existence does have evidence.
It does not, and comparing this to scientific progress is simply lunacy.
I myself, while in fine physical and mental health, with no one around to tell me what I should feel or that I should expect a feeling, no strange diet or drugs or anything, have physically felt the presence of God. Other Christians have shared their experiences with me, and have had similar experiences. My atheist girlfriend felt it; she simply did not interpret it to be the Christian idea of God (which she's not familiar with, anyway), but found it no less spiritual.
Exactly. What you felt wasn't God. It was a purely naturalistic event which has in fact been explained by scientists already. You only think you "felt the presence of God", but you didn't really.
5 people saw car accident happen. 100 people did not.
Were all those 100 people there as well?
The 5 who saw it state their claims but are not believed by the 100 because the 100 didn't see it themselves.
So the 100 weren't actually there to see the car accident? They only had five people tell them that "it happened, honest!", but there is no evidence what so ever for it, even when visiting the place of the accident? No hospital records, no police, no anything?
Does this mean the car accident didn't happen?
If there is no evidence what so ever that it happened, and if the attempts at proving it fail completely, it is reasonable to believe that it didn't happen, yes.
Religion is a deeply personal experience and it is very difficult to correctly explain an experience to somebody else
Not at all! Scientists can, in fact, explain these experiences. "Deeply spiritual" experiences have been explained by science ages ago. And they've got nothing to do with actual supernatural nonsense.
much like it is very difficult to explain what salt tastes like to one who has never experienced it.
Oh, but we can observe the effects of salt.
I personally know many good people from various religions and their religions make them better people. I also know those who claim they do not believe in a supreme being. But in almost every case I have looked at in depth I have found a very personal and quite illogical reason at the foundation of their disbelief.
I call bullshit, especially considering your useless and nonsensical arguments above.
Scientists don't claim that "everything just popped into existence". The Big Bang explains how the current universe came to be, it doesn't explain what was before it. Energy/matter has always existed. You don't know shit about logic (or facts).
Re:Put your soul where your mouth is...
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 1
It is not scientific unless you can reliably recreate it under controlled sircumstances. Furthermore, the effect which leads people to be religious has already been described by scientists. The mind often plays tricks on us.
What these people arguing in the all the posts above are arguing within the realm of physical science. God exists outside of the physical realm and hence can't be proven or disproven using physical science.
This is nonsense. If God is passive, un-measurable, and never interferes with reality, then he is good as no god. If, however, he does step in, as today's religions claim, he can be measured and observed (or the results of his actions).
The dilemma is that the universe appears to have a "creation moment", in the sense of nothing exists, then BANG! everything exists.
No, energy/matter has always existed. The Big Bang was just the start of our CURRENT universe. Also, from TalkOrigins:
The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause.
By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.
This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
in 30 cubit high letters of ever-burning fire, in ca 1200BC Semetic script, the 10 Commandments in a suitably stripped form to match what religious scholars would guess the original text of 10 Words, it still wouldn't be adequate evidence for many people. After all, some natural law allows the letters to burn forever on the rock
What you are saying is that if there is evidence of such a natural law, then that still doesn't show that there is no need for a god to create those letters?
So while you seem to be whining about rational people not accepting crap as evidence of God, you yourself will reject naturalistic explanations to what you believe is the work of God.
So, yes, an atheistic universe is necessarily devoid of purpose
Argument from wishful thinking again, I notice. There might not be an ultimate purpose to everything, but I can still create my own purpose for my own life. Or are you saying that your life is pointless to you if there is no god?
Actually, religion steps on the toes of science. Belief in God means that you believe that God created everything, right? And so God is part of reality, and that means that science should be able to observe him. But no... No such thing. Religion closes the mind to reality. It makes us sit back and relax. It makes us think that there's no point in understanding everything because God did it, and he has a plan.
Also, why shouldn't science attempt to explain these processes?
Belief in a power greater than ourselves is about logic? Your arguments are arguments from wishful thinking. Belief in God doesn't become logical just because you wish for him to exist (to give us purpose (what is God's purpose anyway?)).
The list of murderers would only include people convicted of murder. Just like Spamhaus only adds someone to their list if it's been reported by at least three major sources as being s spammer.
So what you are saying is that it is arrogant of Nintendo to deliver titles that are of generally excellent quality, well received, and sell well? Wow. Basically, "if you supply demand, you are arrogant". If no one wanted these games, they would stop producing them.
The clitoris does work well. It isn't the clit's fault that religious morons have robbed women of their sexuality throughout history. Women never figure out to do it for themselves because they have been trained to be ashamed. Oh yeah, and the clitories is also extremely sensitive. Often moreso, in fact, than the glans.
God gave us sex to not only enjoy but also procreate
He did? Why would he give us sex? Did Adam and Eve have sex before they ate the fruit? Of course not, but since God knew that he had set up Adam and Eve for failure, he gave them a reproductive system? He knew that they would fall? What a fucking evil bastard.
Terrible strategy or not, Opera has had to make its own money. All other browsers are backed by some major corporation (Mozilla by several), and get a free ride. No such luxury for Opera. Then Firefox showed that you could make shitloads of money off of searches... Funny how Opera's innovation (search field) keeps the money flowing into Mozilla Corp.
Apparently a lot of people since even IE has MDI these days. Yes, "tabbed browsing" is just MDI. MDI is "Multiple Document Interface", and there are lots of ways to present those. Tabs in browsers being one.
My self i use Firefox over Opera for almost one reason. The ability to select piece of text, right click on it, select search with google and firefox opens a new tab for the search instead of the same
Exactly. That's what counts. What you think at the time.
The rate of teenaged pregnancy leaves me surprised at how little they know, yes.
No, the rate of teen pregnancies shows that they are fucking like rabbits even though the Government wants them not to. If the Government had promoted condoms instead of abstinence, this wouldn't have been such a big deal.
Pornography is much older than the internet, as is teenaged sex.
Indeed, but one has easier access than ever.
It doesn't matter how "sexually" active they appear to be or genuinely are, they still approach it like teenagers, with all the bullshit that entails.
And yet teenagers today are ahead of what they were a few years ago.
the bodies of teenaged girls tend to be attached to the minds of teenaged girls, so why would you even want to?
Because if you are a teenage boy yourself, you won't mind:)
they've yet to have a reason to learn to do anything more than lie there like a dead fish
Well. You would be surprised at how much teens today know about sex, and how active they are. In just a few years, they've become far more aware of these things. The 'net helps in a lot of areas...
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists don't claim that "everything just popped into existence". The Big Bang explains how the current universe came to be, it doesn't explain what was before it. Energy/matter has always existed. You don't know shit about logic (or facts).
It is not scientific unless you can reliably recreate it under controlled sircumstances. Furthermore, the effect which leads people to be religious has already been described by scientists. The mind often plays tricks on us.
So while you seem to be whining about rational people not accepting crap as evidence of God, you yourself will reject naturalistic explanations to what you believe is the work of God.
The reason why there are religious scientists is that they stop thinking rationally when it comes to one particular aspect of their life.
s/questions/questioned
Stalin was an Atheist, but he didn't do evil deeds because he was an Atheist. He did so because his ideology was basically like a religion:
Basically, Atheism was incidental to him. It was not why he did evil things. Just like him drinking water wasn't what made him to evil things.
Also, why shouldn't science attempt to explain these processes?
The list of murderers would only include people convicted of murder. Just like Spamhaus only adds someone to their list if it's been reported by at least three major sources as being s spammer.
So what you are saying is that it is arrogant of Nintendo to deliver titles that are of generally excellent quality, well received, and sell well? Wow. Basically, "if you supply demand, you are arrogant". If no one wanted these games, they would stop producing them.
The clitoris does work well. It isn't the clit's fault that religious morons have robbed women of their sexuality throughout history. Women never figure out to do it for themselves because they have been trained to be ashamed. Oh yeah, and the clitories is also extremely sensitive. Often moreso, in fact, than the glans.
Erm, have you ever heard about "orgasms"? Women have them too, especially if you stimulate the clitoris correctly.
The clitoris is not an accident. It gives the owner pleasure.
Terrible strategy or not, Opera has had to make its own money. All other browsers are backed by some major corporation (Mozilla by several), and get a free ride. No such luxury for Opera. Then Firefox showed that you could make shitloads of money off of searches... Funny how Opera's innovation (search field) keeps the money flowing into Mozilla Corp.