Someone with a firmer spiritual belief than I will be utterly convinced there's a purpose, but it won't be able to be explained by science, as science is only a useful tool for examining that which exists in our physical universe, and their purpose will almost certainly exist outside of it.
This is like me claiming that "wibblesplat" exists, and then criticising science for not being to know its shape. If it exists, it can be analysed scientifically - I'm not sure what you mean by "outside" our physical Universe - the Universe is everything that physically exists (as opposed to things like "ideas"), by definition.
Yes, I agree that science is "only" a useful tool for examining things that actually exist, and it no good trying to guess things that are made up and are just concepts inside people's heads.
boiling water mixed with dried leaves and milk produces a drink (this could be expanded to detail the complicated chemistry of a good cup of tea) my wife is thirsty and needs liquids to prevent dehydration, renal failure and eventual death it is customary and polite in the UK to offer tea to people I love her
But all of these answers can be given rationally, using evidence, reasoning and logic. Okay then, so not everything is answered purely by "science" - some things might be a matter of History, Economics, Psychology, Politics and so. But none of these things are religion or faith. You are conflating the scientific method with "pure science" (i.e., what scientists usually investigate). Things like love are still under the domain of scientific enquiry, as is that people die because they were serving their country. Yes, the fact that WW1 started in 1914 might be usually referred to as a matter of History rather than Science, but that doesn't mean that knowing when wars started is beyond the realms of the scientific method - obviously it is. It's just that we label people who research the past "Historians" rather than "Scientists", even when they use evidence and scientific methods in their approach.
So give me a question where the answer is found (and by "found", I don't mean "made up") through religion?
current scientists who believe in God are a statistical majority. maybe they're onto something.
I'm curious, do you have a source? (We must also be careful with the definitions issue, as with Einstein - scientists using "God" to mean "nature" may be onto something, but that doesn't mean billions of theists believing in a personal interventionist God are onto something.)
72.2% disbelieve in a personal God? Yes, I suspect they are onto something.
science and faith are utterly and equally non-applicable to each other. science deal with the natural world and provable facts. faith deals with the supernatural world and non-provable mysteries. believe in either, or both, or neither. but don't try to apply them to each other. you will fail.
I agree entirely - I would be happy if religion was kept out of science, out of science lessons, out of politics, and anywhere else that concerned the physical world and dealing with facts. Keep faith to personal beliefs and the philosophical debates on the supernatural world and other unprovable things, and that's fine by me.
which billions? Christians? Hindus? Bhuddists? Muslims? Pagans?
Yes to Christians, Hindus and Muslims. Christians and Muslims both have pretty much the same view of God (the Abrahamic view), and form over 3 billion - about half of the population, and the majority of theists on this planet.
Hindu perceptions of God vary, but AIUI, they still generally believe in a powerful personal God. Together, these now form over 4 billion people on that planet. They have a view of "God" which has many things in common, that is distinct to the meaning as used by Einstein. I have no time to get into a word definitions debate - if I make a statement about "God" as viewed by the majority of people on the planet - billions of - people - it is not helpful to the debate to say things along the lines of "But so-and-so believes in elephants, which he refers to as 'God', therefore God exists, or belief in God is intelligent".
Bhuddism does not specify a belief in God (though some Bhuddists may happen to believe in God), so that's not relevant here. Paganism can refer to all sorts of different beliefs and religions, so you'll have to specify.
both are valuble tools.
I was with you up until this point. I have nothing against someone who simply believes, but I can't see how it is a valuable tool - you acknowledge yourself that it is unprovable, untestable, dealing with things that don't even have a common definition. What value does it have as a tool?
So it was a Catholic Priest that came up with the "Big Bang Theory". Don't say that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
He may have happened to have been a catholic priest as well, but I presume he was following the scientific method, not religion, when he developed his theory.
Scientists ask how. Religion asks why.
Yes. The difference is that scientists get their answers, but religion doesn't.
I never understood this argument as a strike against religion
Well you're both right really - yes, religion has made many testable claims about reality. But time and time again these are disproven by science. You then get one of several responses:
1. A denial that it has been disproven (e.g., those who still believe in ID over evolution) simply by ignoring or misunderstanding the evidence.
2. A denial based on "God made it look that way" (e.g., saying God put the dinosaur bones there to confuse us, or he created the world recently but made it look older).
3. Those who retreat into a position of "But God is the one behind it" (e.g., theists who believe God started life, and then things happen according to evolution, or that he somehow influences evolution in that mutations are caused by God, not random chance).
2 and 3 are now unfalsifiable positions. Furthermore, even though specific claims of religion can and have been falsified, the fundamental religious belief in their God is never falsifiable, because they will always retreat to "God was the one behind it". Even if some core belief such as Jesus being the son of God, or existence of specifically the Christian God, was disproven, I bet billions of Christians would then retreat to some more vague notion of "God" (consider the Christians who think Einstein shared their belief in God, simply because he used the label "God", even though he specifically stated he didn't believe in a personal God).
Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world.
Right - religion is unnecessary in terms of describing the Universe, as science is completely able to describe how things happen.
Religion is just left attempting to answer the purpose of things - but not only has it not come up with a verifiable answer, it has not even shown that there is a purpose in the first place.
So I am left wondering, if religion should be nothing more than a minor philosophical issue (similar to "how many angels can dance on a pinhead") on whether things have a purpose, why it has so much strength, influence on people, and political power in the world?
I wouldn't go as far as the OP - certainly one can be very intelligent whilst still having irrational beliefs, phobias and so on.
However, one should be wary of using this as a counter-argument. People have already disputed Einstein. The problem with many of the rest is that they lived before Darwinism, and in general they didn't have the benefit of hundreds of years of scientific knowledge. Before knowledge of evolution, it was hard to counter the claim that there must have been a God who made everything.
I mean, Newton believed in all sorts of crap such as Alchemy . This didn't mean that he was stupid, because he didn't have the benefit of what we know today. But if people were trying to force Alchemy to be taught in place of Chemistry lessons, I might think of them as stupid - I'm not sure that's best countered by pointing to Newton's belief.
(Also, an argument on suggesting that it is ludicrous that they "were all wrong" is not a good one either - these people are now known to have been wrong on all sorts of beliefs they held - Einstein and Quantum Mechanics, for example.)
wow, athiest spin from dawkins. you can do better than that.
Wait - you happily what "godandscience.org" says, but you refer to a direct quotation from Einstein as "atheist spin" because it's on Dawkins's site?
call him ambivalent or agnostic, but to call him an atheist is nothing more or less than redefining the word.
Well he wouldn't be agnostic either, if this was true.
I wouldn't call him an atheist simply because he didn't identify as such, but that's not the point. Just because Einstein used the word "God" doesn't mean he has anything in common with the billions of people who believe God to be some thinking interventionist being.
When I say I don't believe in God and refer to myself as an atheist, I am doing so in the context of "God" as defined by the usage of billions of people. My stance is not invalidated because a minority of pantheists etc who use "God" to basically mean "nature", just as someone using "God" to mean "elephants" doesn't make it true that God exists. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that people share a common belief, just because they use the same labels.
I can't speak for the OP nagora, but I suspect he refers to "God" as the common majority usage, not those who use "God" to mean other things (be it "nature" or "elephants").
Then why would he need a surrogate? If he meant "nature," why not say "nature?"
Why do I say "God damn it"? Many scientists use "God" as a metaphorical personification for nature - it's a figure of speech. "God does not play dice" sounds better than "Nature does not play dice", at least, it does for people who realise this isn't to be taken literally.
Consider "Mother nature does not play dice" - would you say that also implies no belief in God? But what if then there were a load of people who worshipped a being called "mother nature", claiming she was an intelligent thinking being who created everything, and also claimed therefore that Einstein shared their beliefs?
Who is to say that this is not a form religious belief, even if it is not the kind of personal God that many people visualize?
And who is to say it is? If you make the claim that Einstein has some undefined form of religious belief, you can show the evidence.
Show me that there's a purpose of things, then we can ask "Why?" If we discover that there must be a purpose, then science will also conceivably be able to find what that purpose is.
Claiming that science doesn't explain why things happen is like complaining that science doesn't explain flying invisible teapots, or what Bilbo Baggins's favourite colour is, or what shape is a "wibblesplat". They are all nonsensical questions that may not have answers, because the things in the question don't exist in the first place.
If there is no why, then we are here for no reason at all.
Right.
And if we are here for no reason at all, why behave nicely?
Non-sequitor. How does having a reason, imply behaving nicely?
Why do you think raping and murder is wrong (assuming you do)?
Let's start with definitions - when I say "X is wrong" I am expressing my opinion that I do not wish people to behave in that way. I don't want people to rape because rape causes measurable harm, and I don't want a world where I or other people are harmed against their will ("murder is wrong" is a tautology btw, since murder by definition means "killing which you think is wrong"; however, I believe that some killing is wrong for the same reason as rape, it causes unnecessary harm to others).
Your turn: Why are rape and murder wrong?
By your post, it sounds like this is nothing more than "People shouldn't do it because they'll be punished in their afterlife" which in my opinion is completely amoral.
I find it worrying if people like you would resort to killing randomly, if you didn't think there was some big daddy to punish you for it. I also find it worrying that people do resort to killing randomly, because they think that it's what their God wants. All sense of empathy, or arguments based on evidence and logic, go out the window.
But even then, where do you think the religious idea of rape being wrong came from? Unless you believe God really did come down and tell people, someone somewhere must have decided why it should be wrong without resorting to "God", just like I did above. The only point you are making is that many people are too stupid to do this for themselves, and need the idea of someone to punish them - but clearly, there must be some people who can come up with this idea for themselves, otherwise it wouldn't have appeared in religion.
The same reason why scientists need to run around and find out 'how'.
But we know that "How" is always a valid question - we are simply asking for knowledge on what happens in the Universe; what events take place, which is all potentially observable.
"Why" still presupposes that there is a purpose for everything. It's clinging to the idea that the natural explanation isn't correct, so there must be an intelligent being who made it happen, just to piss you off.
To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything. I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true.
What evidence then?
Note, I agree there's nothing inherently wrong in believing in God as an explanation, if the evidence really does point to God rather than something else. The point about "God of the Gaps" is that (a) the "God" explanation says nothing more than "God did it", and thus offers no predictive power, nor is there any reason to accept it over "It was done by magic" or "foo puff fibble zing"; and (b) these "God did it" claims have repeatedly been disproven, and replaced with a scientific explanation.
If you tell us what you consider as evidence, we can see if this is still God of the Gaps.
I'll also agree that the God of the Gaps is less common today then it used to be. However, it is still strong enough to be a powerful political force - for example, influencing what is taught in schools. Large numbers of people in the US prefer "God did it" to evolutionary theory, when it comes to explaining life as we see it today.
You are thinking of apatheism, or perhaps ignosticism. Both of these can overlap with atheism (just as agnosticsm can) - these are words for seperate concepts that are not mutually exclusive.
The rest of your post is just a tired string of strawman arguments - I find it sad that atheism sometimes seems to attract most criticism and abuse not from theism, but agnostics who also don't believe in God, but think that because they are less vocal about it, or because they misunderstand what Atheism and Agnosticism actually mean, they have a logically superior position.
Athiests vary in their vocality, but firmly believe that they are right about something they'll have no proof, either.
The only thing I think I'm right as an atheist is that (a) there is currently no evidence for God, and that therefore (b) I reject believe in God.
Agnostics also vary in their vocality - both agnostics who criticise atheism, as well as those who claim that we can never know if God exists. That's a positive statement of belief. I guess by your logic, this makes all Agnosticism "just another religion".
If you aren't an athiest, an athiest will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter.
Yet you are the one stepping in first, getting all confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that someone is an atheist, not an agnostic.
Agnostics generally don't get in your face or try to change your mind if you are a believer or a disbeliever (as they're all the same).
What are all the same? Many atheists don't get "in your face or try to change your mind", where as some agnostics too. There are plenty of occasions where it is perfectly acceptable to be vocal - otherwise we end up with things like teaching Creationism in science lessons. Defending one's lack of belief is not the same as forcing your beliefs onto others. There is also nothing wrong with making an appeal to try to change people's opinions or beliefs - people debate all the time, and you're doing it too.
So basically, you can't prove the existence of god, but you can't disprove it either:). All you really have is a stalemate.
If there is no evidence for something, but we also can't put forward evidence against it, this is not a stalemate - we can still put forward the idea that there is no reason to believe in such things. Unless invisible unicorns and flying space teapots are also "stalemates" that theists should also believe in?
And we argue with "dangerous religious nuts" not just as a mad way of passing time, but because these religious ideas have political power - in this case, control over what is taught in schools.
God is not an explanation of the things we don't understand. The idea of God was around before we understood much, and things were chalked up to God when people didn't understand them, but the idea of God is not simply an explanation of nature. Quit perpetuating a useless viewpoint that only serves to cause controversy.
Given the number of people who throughout the ages, and today, refer to "God" as a supposed explanation, I think this requires some evidence. Even if you were right, and the original idea of "gods" was not to explain things, it's clear that God later became an explanation for many people. But where is your evidence for what the idea of "god" originally meant? (I'm not sure this is even known?)
In my opinion science should pursue everything that can be learnt. However science has no way of proving that there is no teapot in orbit around Jupiter.
I believe the it is a more difficult miracle for God to set this stuff up into motion 15 billion years ago so that today you have humans walking around than to have created everything 3000 years ago with the illusion of having been created so long ago.
And why would he do that? This sounds like an argument against God to me - yes, that this is all done by a single being, or that he would need to resort to some grand illusion, does seem rather ludicrous.
Anyhow, if there is no testable difference between the Universe being as we observe it, or it only having been created 5 minutes ago, who cares?
See, that's my point. "Magic man dunnit" is no more the core of religious belief than "people came from monkeys" is the core of evolutionary science.
So what is the core of religious belief?
I've come across countless people who will say things like "Science can't explain X, but religion can: God did it!" Perhaps this is just a minority - what do the majority believe then, if they don't believe in a God that created the Universe?
It sounds like you've just stepped out of a time machine... other platforms have done easy backups for years, iTunes is available on Windows, other computers can have all sorts of designs, and webcams aren't exactly revolutionary anymore.
Back in the old days of DOS, the Apple Macintosh was the "windowing operating system." UNIX and X-Windows systems also did graphics, but generally only for CAD (Computer Aided Design) applications.
Linux has never fought in the graphical environment and ease of use space.
Well loads of operating systems had GUIs back then - DOS was the notable exception.
Linux never fought in those spaces because it came along later - but that applies to OS X too, which is a different operating system to its earlier namesake.
OS X. Because making Unix easy was easier than fixing windows.
Although more accurately for Apple, it's: making Unix easy was easier than fixing MacOS - they finally ditched it and resorted to another OS after several years of trying to modernize it.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and the point is there's nothing about God in there. You can be religious and not believe in God.
Someone with a firmer spiritual belief than I will be utterly convinced there's a purpose, but it won't be able to be explained by science, as science is only a useful tool for examining that which exists in our physical universe, and their purpose will almost certainly exist outside of it.
This is like me claiming that "wibblesplat" exists, and then criticising science for not being to know its shape. If it exists, it can be analysed scientifically - I'm not sure what you mean by "outside" our physical Universe - the Universe is everything that physically exists (as opposed to things like "ideas"), by definition.
Yes, I agree that science is "only" a useful tool for examining things that actually exist, and it no good trying to guess things that are made up and are just concepts inside people's heads.
boiling water mixed with dried leaves and milk produces a drink (this could be expanded to detail the complicated chemistry of a good cup of tea)
my wife is thirsty and needs liquids to prevent dehydration, renal failure and eventual death
it is customary and polite in the UK to offer tea to people
I love her
But all of these answers can be given rationally, using evidence, reasoning and logic. Okay then, so not everything is answered purely by "science" - some things might be a matter of History, Economics, Psychology, Politics and so. But none of these things are religion or faith. You are conflating the scientific method with "pure science" (i.e., what scientists usually investigate). Things like love are still under the domain of scientific enquiry, as is that people die because they were serving their country. Yes, the fact that WW1 started in 1914 might be usually referred to as a matter of History rather than Science, but that doesn't mean that knowing when wars started is beyond the realms of the scientific method - obviously it is. It's just that we label people who research the past "Historians" rather than "Scientists", even when they use evidence and scientific methods in their approach.
So give me a question where the answer is found (and by "found", I don't mean "made up") through religion?
current scientists who believe in God are a statistical majority. maybe they're onto something.
I'm curious, do you have a source? (We must also be careful with the definitions issue, as with Einstein - scientists using "God" to mean "nature" may be onto something, but that doesn't mean billions of theists believing in a personal interventionist God are onto something.)
At least one source disputes this - http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html .
72.2% disbelieve in a personal God? Yes, I suspect they are onto something.
science and faith are utterly and equally non-applicable to each other. science deal with the natural world and provable facts. faith deals with the supernatural world and non-provable mysteries. believe in either, or both, or neither. but don't try to apply them to each other. you will fail.
I agree entirely - I would be happy if religion was kept out of science, out of science lessons, out of politics, and anywhere else that concerned the physical world and dealing with facts. Keep faith to personal beliefs and the philosophical debates on the supernatural world and other unprovable things, and that's fine by me.
which billions? Christians? Hindus? Bhuddists? Muslims? Pagans?
Yes to Christians, Hindus and Muslims. Christians and Muslims both have pretty much the same view of God (the Abrahamic view), and form over 3 billion - about half of the population, and the majority of theists on this planet.
Hindu perceptions of God vary, but AIUI, they still generally believe in a powerful personal God. Together, these now form over 4 billion people on that planet. They have a view of "God" which has many things in common, that is distinct to the meaning as used by Einstein. I have no time to get into a word definitions debate - if I make a statement about "God" as viewed by the majority of people on the planet - billions of - people - it is not helpful to the debate to say things along the lines of "But so-and-so believes in elephants, which he refers to as 'God', therefore God exists, or belief in God is intelligent".
Bhuddism does not specify a belief in God (though some Bhuddists may happen to believe in God), so that's not relevant here. Paganism can refer to all sorts of different beliefs and religions, so you'll have to specify.
both are valuble tools.
I was with you up until this point. I have nothing against someone who simply believes, but I can't see how it is a valuable tool - you acknowledge yourself that it is unprovable, untestable, dealing with things that don't even have a common definition. What value does it have as a tool?
So it was a Catholic Priest that came up with the "Big Bang Theory". Don't say that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
He may have happened to have been a catholic priest as well, but I presume he was following the scientific method, not religion, when he developed his theory.
Scientists ask how. Religion asks why.
Yes. The difference is that scientists get their answers, but religion doesn't.
I never understood this argument as a strike against religion
Well you're both right really - yes, religion has made many testable claims about reality. But time and time again these are disproven by science. You then get one of several responses:
1. A denial that it has been disproven (e.g., those who still believe in ID over evolution) simply by ignoring or misunderstanding the evidence.
2. A denial based on "God made it look that way" (e.g., saying God put the dinosaur bones there to confuse us, or he created the world recently but made it look older).
3. Those who retreat into a position of "But God is the one behind it" (e.g., theists who believe God started life, and then things happen according to evolution, or that he somehow influences evolution in that mutations are caused by God, not random chance).
2 and 3 are now unfalsifiable positions. Furthermore, even though specific claims of religion can and have been falsified, the fundamental religious belief in their God is never falsifiable, because they will always retreat to "God was the one behind it". Even if some core belief such as Jesus being the son of God, or existence of specifically the Christian God, was disproven, I bet billions of Christians would then retreat to some more vague notion of "God" (consider the Christians who think Einstein shared their belief in God, simply because he used the label "God", even though he specifically stated he didn't believe in a personal God).
Or as the old Pope hold, science provides a description of how God created the world, while religion provides a description of why God created the world.
Right - religion is unnecessary in terms of describing the Universe, as science is completely able to describe how things happen.
Religion is just left attempting to answer the purpose of things - but not only has it not come up with a verifiable answer, it has not even shown that there is a purpose in the first place.
So I am left wondering, if religion should be nothing more than a minor philosophical issue (similar to "how many angels can dance on a pinhead") on whether things have a purpose, why it has so much strength, influence on people, and political power in the world?
And the Big Bang came from ... where?
I don't know - what's your point?
I wouldn't go as far as the OP - certainly one can be very intelligent whilst still having irrational beliefs, phobias and so on.
However, one should be wary of using this as a counter-argument. People have already disputed Einstein. The problem with many of the rest is that they lived before Darwinism, and in general they didn't have the benefit of hundreds of years of scientific knowledge. Before knowledge of evolution, it was hard to counter the claim that there must have been a God who made everything.
I mean, Newton believed in all sorts of crap such as Alchemy . This didn't mean that he was stupid, because he didn't have the benefit of what we know today. But if people were trying to force Alchemy to be taught in place of Chemistry lessons, I might think of them as stupid - I'm not sure that's best countered by pointing to Newton's belief.
(Also, an argument on suggesting that it is ludicrous that they "were all wrong" is not a good one either - these people are now known to have been wrong on all sorts of beliefs they held - Einstein and Quantum Mechanics, for example.)
wow, athiest spin from dawkins. you can do better than that.
Wait - you happily what "godandscience.org" says, but you refer to a direct quotation from Einstein as "atheist spin" because it's on Dawkins's site?
call him ambivalent or agnostic, but to call him an atheist is nothing more or less than redefining the word.
Well he wouldn't be agnostic either, if this was true.
I wouldn't call him an atheist simply because he didn't identify as such, but that's not the point. Just because Einstein used the word "God" doesn't mean he has anything in common with the billions of people who believe God to be some thinking interventionist being.
When I say I don't believe in God and refer to myself as an atheist, I am doing so in the context of "God" as defined by the usage of billions of people. My stance is not invalidated because a minority of pantheists etc who use "God" to basically mean "nature", just as someone using "God" to mean "elephants" doesn't make it true that God exists. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that people share a common belief, just because they use the same labels.
I can't speak for the OP nagora, but I suspect he refers to "God" as the common majority usage, not those who use "God" to mean other things (be it "nature" or "elephants").
Then why would he need a surrogate? If he meant "nature," why not say "nature?"
Why do I say "God damn it"? Many scientists use "God" as a metaphorical personification for nature - it's a figure of speech. "God does not play dice" sounds better than "Nature does not play dice", at least, it does for people who realise this isn't to be taken literally.
Consider "Mother nature does not play dice" - would you say that also implies no belief in God? But what if then there were a load of people who worshipped a being called "mother nature", claiming she was an intelligent thinking being who created everything, and also claimed therefore that Einstein shared their beliefs?
Who is to say that this is not a form religious belief, even if it is not the kind of personal God that many people visualize?
And who is to say it is? If you make the claim that Einstein has some undefined form of religious belief, you can show the evidence.
Science doesn't explain why things happen
Show me that there's a purpose of things, then we can ask "Why?" If we discover that there must be a purpose, then science will also conceivably be able to find what that purpose is.
Claiming that science doesn't explain why things happen is like complaining that science doesn't explain flying invisible teapots, or what Bilbo Baggins's favourite colour is, or what shape is a "wibblesplat". They are all nonsensical questions that may not have answers, because the things in the question don't exist in the first place.
Ah, it's the "atheists must be immoral" argument.
If there is no why, then we are here for no reason at all.
Right.
And if we are here for no reason at all, why behave nicely?
Non-sequitor. How does having a reason, imply behaving nicely?
Why do you think raping and murder is wrong (assuming you do)?
Let's start with definitions - when I say "X is wrong" I am expressing my opinion that I do not wish people to behave in that way. I don't want people to rape because rape causes measurable harm, and I don't want a world where I or other people are harmed against their will ("murder is wrong" is a tautology btw, since murder by definition means "killing which you think is wrong"; however, I believe that some killing is wrong for the same reason as rape, it causes unnecessary harm to others).
Your turn: Why are rape and murder wrong?
By your post, it sounds like this is nothing more than "People shouldn't do it because they'll be punished in their afterlife" which in my opinion is completely amoral.
I find it worrying if people like you would resort to killing randomly, if you didn't think there was some big daddy to punish you for it. I also find it worrying that people do resort to killing randomly, because they think that it's what their God wants. All sense of empathy, or arguments based on evidence and logic, go out the window.
But even then, where do you think the religious idea of rape being wrong came from? Unless you believe God really did come down and tell people, someone somewhere must have decided why it should be wrong without resorting to "God", just like I did above. The only point you are making is that many people are too stupid to do this for themselves, and need the idea of someone to punish them - but clearly, there must be some people who can come up with this idea for themselves, otherwise it wouldn't have appeared in religion.
The same reason why scientists need to run around and find out 'how'.
But we know that "How" is always a valid question - we are simply asking for knowledge on what happens in the Universe; what events take place, which is all potentially observable.
"Why" still presupposes that there is a purpose for everything. It's clinging to the idea that the natural explanation isn't correct, so there must be an intelligent being who made it happen, just to piss you off.
To put it another way, I don't believe in God in order to explain anything. I believe in God because I think all the evidence points that being true.
What evidence then?
Note, I agree there's nothing inherently wrong in believing in God as an explanation, if the evidence really does point to God rather than something else. The point about "God of the Gaps" is that (a) the "God" explanation says nothing more than "God did it", and thus offers no predictive power, nor is there any reason to accept it over "It was done by magic" or "foo puff fibble zing"; and (b) these "God did it" claims have repeatedly been disproven, and replaced with a scientific explanation.
If you tell us what you consider as evidence, we can see if this is still God of the Gaps.
I'll also agree that the God of the Gaps is less common today then it used to be. However, it is still strong enough to be a powerful political force - for example, influencing what is taught in schools. Large numbers of people in the US prefer "God did it" to evolutionary theory, when it comes to explaining life as we see it today.
Agnostics just think the debate is pointless.
You are thinking of apatheism, or perhaps ignosticism. Both of these can overlap with atheism (just as agnosticsm can) - these are words for seperate concepts that are not mutually exclusive.
The rest of your post is just a tired string of strawman arguments - I find it sad that atheism sometimes seems to attract most criticism and abuse not from theism, but agnostics who also don't believe in God, but think that because they are less vocal about it, or because they misunderstand what Atheism and Agnosticism actually mean, they have a logically superior position.
Athiests vary in their vocality, but firmly believe that they are right about something they'll have no proof, either.
The only thing I think I'm right as an atheist is that (a) there is currently no evidence for God, and that therefore (b) I reject believe in God.
Agnostics also vary in their vocality - both agnostics who criticise atheism, as well as those who claim that we can never know if God exists. That's a positive statement of belief. I guess by your logic, this makes all Agnosticism "just another religion".
If you aren't an athiest, an athiest will think you are wrong and will be confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that you can't see the wisdom of their own position on the matter.
Yet you are the one stepping in first, getting all confused/disappointed/frustrated/angry that someone is an atheist, not an agnostic.
Agnostics generally don't get in your face or try to change your mind if you are a believer or a disbeliever (as they're all the same).
What are all the same? Many atheists don't get "in your face or try to change your mind", where as some agnostics too. There are plenty of occasions where it is perfectly acceptable to be vocal - otherwise we end up with things like teaching Creationism in science lessons. Defending one's lack of belief is not the same as forcing your beliefs onto others. There is also nothing wrong with making an appeal to try to change people's opinions or beliefs - people debate all the time, and you're doing it too.
So basically, you can't prove the existence of god, but you can't disprove it either :). All you really have is a stalemate.
If there is no evidence for something, but we also can't put forward evidence against it, this is not a stalemate - we can still put forward the idea that there is no reason to believe in such things. Unless invisible unicorns and flying space teapots are also "stalemates" that theists should also believe in?
And we argue with "dangerous religious nuts" not just as a mad way of passing time, but because these religious ideas have political power - in this case, control over what is taught in schools.
God is not an explanation of the things we don't understand. The idea of God was around before we understood much, and things were chalked up to God when people didn't understand them, but the idea of God is not simply an explanation of nature. Quit perpetuating a useless viewpoint that only serves to cause controversy.
Given the number of people who throughout the ages, and today, refer to "God" as a supposed explanation, I think this requires some evidence. Even if you were right, and the original idea of "gods" was not to explain things, it's clear that God later became an explanation for many people. But where is your evidence for what the idea of "god" originally meant? (I'm not sure this is even known?)
In my opinion science should pursue everything that can be learnt. However science has no way of proving that there is no teapot in orbit around Jupiter.
I believe the it is a more difficult miracle for God to set this stuff up into motion 15 billion years ago so that today you have humans walking around than to have created everything 3000 years ago with the illusion of having been created so long ago.
And why would he do that? This sounds like an argument against God to me - yes, that this is all done by a single being, or that he would need to resort to some grand illusion, does seem rather ludicrous.
Anyhow, if there is no testable difference between the Universe being as we observe it, or it only having been created 5 minutes ago, who cares?
See, that's my point. "Magic man dunnit" is no more the core of religious belief than "people came from monkeys" is the core of evolutionary science.
So what is the core of religious belief?
I've come across countless people who will say things like "Science can't explain X, but religion can: God did it!" Perhaps this is just a minority - what do the majority believe then, if they don't believe in a God that created the Universe?
It sounds like you've just stepped out of a time machine... other platforms have done easy backups for years, iTunes is available on Windows, other computers can have all sorts of designs, and webcams aren't exactly revolutionary anymore.
Back in the old days of DOS, the Apple Macintosh was the "windowing operating system." UNIX and X-Windows systems also did graphics, but generally only for CAD (Computer Aided Design) applications.
Linux has never fought in the graphical environment and ease of use space.
Well loads of operating systems had GUIs back then - DOS was the notable exception.
Linux never fought in those spaces because it came along later - but that applies to OS X too, which is a different operating system to its earlier namesake.
OS X. Because making Unix easy was easier than fixing windows.
Although more accurately for Apple, it's: making Unix easy was easier than fixing MacOS - they finally ditched it and resorted to another OS after several years of trying to modernize it.
Yes but it's still annoying to have to grapple with and support two operating systems.
VS is a piece of crap.
There are plenty of decent editors on Windows, you don't have to use VS.