I'm an Atheist because apparently God made me one.

(got that from Crused Lemon.)

Yep, same exactly here.

__________________

Ah, I see we have a true pastafarian on the forums lingering around. I'm reading the book now.

__________________

You're implying that religious folk don't think for themselves.

__________________

I am not an Atheist, i am Agnostic.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

__________________

I am a Deist, with a apatheist attitude. Deism is denying organized religion like Christianity, and has a huge encouragment in reason. I don't pray either.

__________________

It isn't a matter of choice.

__________________

Which is a flaw of Pascal's suggestion. I know voluntarism and belief do not necessarily coincide, but to say that one's beliefs cannot be changed is not true. People convince themselves to believe something all the time. I'm not saying that's what people should do, I was just throwing the thought out there

__________________

If you want to believe what you want to hear and ignore what doesn't suit you, then no, it doesn't equal truth.

Where the hell did you get this quote? LAW is unable to be argued. It's LAW. Theories are based on evidence, made into hypotheses, then after enough evidence is found made into a theory, which is then edited and revised as new evidence comes to light.

Reality is subjective. Again, you're not breaking any ground; everyone's point of view can be argued differently. How that view contrasts to the rest of the world however is the only way we can create order.

I can create a theory right now that the world was created by some f..king flying spaghetti monster in the sky. To make that theory credible however, would be one hell of a daunting task if I were to stay within emipirical evidence and away from the faith arguement. If you choose to disbelief science, you choose to ignore the data in front of you and insert whatever you want as the answer.

Genesis can't be proven and has no evidence for it whatsoever; it's a faith belief like all theism. Ok, disprove the Big Bang Theory, I'd really like to see this. Oh and if you try to pull Creationalism on me, look no farther than EmptyProduction's thread on "Why people laugh at creationalists."

No one thinks for themselves.

__________________