Heartless Angel
The Mad God

i realise i just wrote that the idea of god is more valid than there not being one, That was a mistake. I realise your point was the one should be neither greater than the other.

yeah, there's really nothing I can argue against that. Although I retain my previous statements and I cannot consider how the idea of a god is more valid than there not being one. Thats my thought process. We can be absolutly certain that 2+2=4, because it is a form of understanding created by man that has developed into everything we have come to know today about the universe. If we can be absolutly certain about math and the proof is in what we have discovered by using it, I would say thats more justification to believe in than anything else, based on what it has allowed us to discover. unless you think that its by accident we discovered things , otherwise the methodology we use it absoultly correct. What do you think about that example?

So you're saying that I have no justification for believing something more-so because I can see it, as opposed to something I cant see? Not just visually, but something interpreted by the senses?

I think I understand now. Even if you can see something with you eyes, you would still put 'faith' in its existence because even though we can see it has a physical form and effect, how do we know it even really exists other than our senses, correct?

I agree with that comeplety. I understand that you place more value in logic, but if both beliefs are technically equal in terms of validity (within their own domains) why is it that you would choose science over god or religion? Or why is that you dont choose god or religion?

well nothing is certain and no decision can be made with absolute certainty but having said that, that would make every single decision a 'faith' based decision, according to you.

Im at the point where I concede there is absolutly no certainty to the fundementals of reality and the begginings of the universe. My arguement however was not to go that far, and always remained that science and disbelief before belief is a better option than religion. And that was because science offers us what religion cannot and that is once again, testability, repeatability and results. Although you say these results are based upon things which may not prove to be true once we discover the ultimate fundementals, they actually work and they work over and over again and we can test this as many times as we like. The idea that believing something with no justication for believing is equal to science which possess countless possiblities and ever growing discoveries and studies of our planet and what works and what is useful to us, I percieve to be asinine. The idea that common sense is on the same level as believing something without a reason is also asinine. Whilst people are free to believe what they want, I think they waste their time with these irrational beliefs and it affects their children. As previously posted, a girl was "brought up this way". You like talking about fundementals? Fundementally, religion is to blame, not the parents of the child.

I agree with what you're saying but I dont think we see eye to eye on what faith actually means. Im going to try and make it really simple so all the onlookers who are currently viewing our conversation can understand it.

"I have faith in science, empirical data, logic, and reason, but to accept these things as the truth would be contradictory to my own beliefs."

You dont have faith in science, you have Trust.
If you bet money on me in a footrace and had never seen me race before or know anything of my abilities, you would be taking a chance and chose to put your faith in me.

If I was renoun for being the fastest and win more often than anyone else, you would bet on me not with faith, but you would trust that I would win and your bet on me would be an informed decision based on results.

As I've stated before, i dont deal with absolute certancies. Nothing is certain. But the smart move is one based on results rather than nothing.

science deals with results that are not always accurate, but have reliability. Faith and religion do not have either and cannot be tested.

i just re read your post. I have to say that you cant compare the internet to the beginings and makings of the universe. Man invented the internet, we know it exists because we invented it. Just because I didnt invent it, it doesnt mean I cant prove it exists.

You sir, are good. I have one last stab for you.

Q: You guys believe there is no God, but you can't prove that there isn't. So being an atheist obviously requires at least as much faith as being a Christian.

A: This assumption is rooted in the elementary logical fallacy that two opposite things--belief and disbelief--are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. For example, in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime.

To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense. Here is an analogous situation: supposedly, as a Christian, you do not believe in the Roman or Aztec gods. Is it just as much an "act of faith" on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and Aztecs to believe in them? If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an "act of faith" on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf? Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do.

Finally, one can turn to the Bible's definition of faith--the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"--to see that this is a definition that excludes disbelief. So if you still don't agree with us that atheism is not a faith, then check your Bibles.

well hang on a second. Lets go back. I've never been to America, but I know america exists. And thats because ive met people from there and many people claim it exists based on the fact that its been on tv etc. I've never been to america, but I dont believe it exists on 'faith' , I have evidence. I can also decide to go there if I feel its important enough to verify its existence and PROVE it for myself. You cannot do that with religion which is why its entirely faith based.

Another example would be that I have no proof that microwaves exist. I have no proof that ethernet cables and the internet exists other than the fact that, im talking to you now. Thats evidence that supports what I cant fully explain is true. With religion you have nothing like that. You cant test it and you cant explain it.

Looking forward to hearing your response.

I have the craziest taste in music. It changes from one minute to the next, but The Neden Game will always get me through the day with an evil little grin on my face!

Ahh...the spices of life. Give me some ICP, some worthy manga, and a full stock of spicy chex mix and see you in a few weeks; I'm busy!

We bums get a bad rep! Leave us alone already, there is nothing wrong with with lazing about. To each his own!

so you believe that neither science nor religion has more evidence over the other of its worth in terms of beliefs?

For some reason this is turning out to be another lazy as hell day for me. Hows it going for you?