Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Kania  Wowee, scientific law is fullproof.
Hence, it's the fact that it's law.
Law of Conservation of Matter > Genisis
Reality is also subjective by the way; what you're stating isn't a revelation or anything. Most of the debate going on in these threads are debates on facts, consistencies within religous texts/doctrines/dogmas etc., and on poorly interpreted scientific theory.
Occasionaly you'll see some psychology info coming from NG or Davo, but the stuff they say is so hard to grasp it's normally ignored. (I can't understand half of what they say.) |
I'd like to start of with a few points.
Proving something does not make it true, the word is often misconstrued. It just means that you have convinced other people that the evidence supports your conclusion.
Proof does not equal truth.
No scientist will ever claim that a theory is true. What they will do is state that the evidence agrees with the theory. Of course, sometimes new evidence shows up that we didn't have before. Then in science, as in law, we will reach a new conclusion.
Of course, I'd be really wrong if I thought scientists didn't have confidence in their ideas. Knowing that something may change, and believing strongly that right now there is no better answer than the accepted one, are not mutually exclusive points of view.
Scientific laws are the evidence used to support a conclusion. Scientific hypotheses and theories are our
best attempts [at the time] at explaining the behavior of the world, in ways that can be tested by further experiment.
Shall I say it again? Science isn't full proof. Look at previous theories that have been changed after periods of time with further experiment and thought.
And are you trying to disprove Genesis? If you are, then I can go much further on matters such as the Big Bang and Creationism if you'd like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY Just to touch on one thing you mentioned about your subjective experiences that pursue you to accept god; many of these spiritual encounters/revelations are an example of congnitive realization of a greater happiness in life, something found beyond the mere repitance of daily hobbies and things that edge us away from boredom, doubt, and displeasure.
What I believe, is these accounts of God, are truly realizations of a deeper happiness or revelation of one's inner self/being being misconstrued as God or what have you. |
I understand this thought, and it's a very good point when debating whether one's belief is actually God or simply a revelation of happiness. I'll just say a few thoughts that come to mind here. Believing in a God is and has never been easier for me. It would be much easier to simply
not believe in something that will never be revealed to me until I die, but I choose not to. When I think of God, I don't relate the feelings with happiness, and instead
fear his existence. It's a scary thought that a higher being could be omniscient and omnipresent, so [for me] the thoughts and beliefs aren't necessarily always related to happiness. I don't know there is a God, but I believe that there is.
I don't know if that related well to what you said mainly because I need sleeeeeeep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY PS - Why are you an atheist thread, Wowee  |
Haha. I did say that I
once had atheistic views or at least agnostic ones at a time in my life. But hey, you should just be honored that my superior self visited these debate sections, because it's a rare occasion that it does
Quote:
Originally Posted by d0onut Besides, Christianity takes too much work. A funner form of theism is FSMism; if I were to completely believe something solely off faith, I would already have a pirate outfit for Fridays. |
The initial faith in Christianity is not necessarily hard. You simply have to believe. But of course, if you don't, then that's fine and I understand why you don't. And I LOL-ed at your last part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothing You're implying that religious folk don't think for themselves. |
Exactly. It's ignorant to think that theists don't think for themselves and that only atheists do.
Btw, I didn't even mention Pascal's wager. Even though there are flaws to his original thought, it's a good point in basically saying, "Why not?" Especially when the consequences of doing so could be great. What's the benefit of atheism? Free-thinking, yes, but not much more.