Tiger much of what you say is valid if the bible were written today, but remember most was written over 2500 years ago. God has always been painted as a reflection of the people and their world when it was written. The knowledge of how the world worked was so much more limited and their gods' outlook was what they knew. Now if you talk about the evangelical fire and brimstone preachers that populate the airwaves and their flocks I agree with you. They have no excuse.
This is why I admonish martin not to be a dick. I don't care if the religious choose to believe a myth for faith or whatever reason, I just don't let them try to tell me it is the literal truth. I have no problems with faith in its most basic sense, that is martin the atheist. I have a problem with those that try to use faith to deny or to "explain" science. Do not confuse me with martin. I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. I do not deny God, I simply have no knowledge of him. I do not consider religious mythology to be trivial or stupid as I have explained. Just a relict of an ancient time and often very significant in human history and in the development of Western Civilization. I have no tolerance for rattles and incantations. I have no use for self-proclaimed holy men. My God has no need for my money. I have no need for a shaman to interpret the word of God for me nor to beseech God on my behalf. But I understand and have no problem with people who pray. I can actually talk to God and I realize that I am talking to myself, but I like having an imaginary friend. Or perhaps I am God. I am being facetious as well, perhaps, but the point is that just because educated people should and do realize what is real and factual, it shouldn't keep them from having an enjoying an imagination.
Again, the definitions, as popularly understood, are misleading. Two separate questions: 1. Does god exist. This question has a factual answer, and the answer is that it is undetermined, but lacks any evidence. Just like Santa Claus or Zeus. Simply saying something is true doesn't mean it is true. You need evidence. There is none. Whether god or the easter bunny exists is undetermined. This is beyond dispute. 2. Different question: do you personally accept the reality of the answer to question one, or are you crazy. Meaning, do you believe in god or not. Given that there lacks any evidence, the only sane position is atheism. Like red says, he has no knowledge of god. So he doesn't believe in him. He is without knowledge or belief, and is literally without theism, and is atheist. S even thought the existence of the easer bunny is undetermined, and I cannot prove he does not exist, he might be invisible or whatever, I cannot choose to believe in him, no matter how hard I try. I can't believe in something merely because it isn't disproven. That's called sanity. Like any theory about anything, you believe it or not based on evidence. If I say I am god, if you are sane, you are aware that this is an assertion made without evidence, and you cannot believe it no matter how hard you try. If I ell you there is a diamond the size of a Volkswagen buried in your backyard, and you are now a billionaire, you don't believe me because there In no evidence. You have no choice if you are sane. You can't believe because you are not a lunatic. The argument "physics cannot disprove it" is not actual evidence claim. It's just a very stupid thing to say. So again, whether you are atheist or not is not about whether god exists, it's about your psychology. Those are two totally different questions, whether god exists, and whether you believe he does. There are sane factual answers, and you can either accept reality, or be a fucking idiot. So when asked if you are an atheist or not, you are being asked if you are n idiot or not.
Are suicide bombers worth respect for believing without evidence that mass murder gets them 72 virgins for doing gods will? Remember, these guys are often college educated fellows. Mohammad atta had a college degree and he is not (what you would describe as) a fire and brimstone yahoo. So surely this miserable fuck deserves your respect right? His faith is deeper than just whatever the fuck you are talking about, right? Is there a standard for reality, or is everything any idiot says ok as long as the pathetic fuck has faith? You should realize that there is no difference between the Harvard religious professor and the backwoods hillbilly snake handler. As you say, physics can't prove either of them wrong. The snake might bite the yahoo and he could die, but according to you physics allows for resurrection, just like the Harvard professor believes. The problem is you are acting like faith is ok some times, but not others. Faith is always equally non-valid as a technique to know things. And it always should be mocked and treated as what it is. The same way I can't say my snake oil cures cancer so you must purchase a case of it for a thousand dollars, you cannot claim resurrection is real or in any way valid. To make that claim makes you a thug and a liar and evil.
Wrong. There is science, and nothing else. Religion tells us nothing about the world. Faith is not a legitimate technique for information acquisition. I am not god. Santa Claus isn't real. Mohammad isn't a prophet. Jesus isn't the son of god. Poseidon is not a god. The Mayan calendar doesn't know the world will end. These questions are not science, not reality. To say religion is another way to know things, this a dirty fucking lie and you should be ashamed.
Martin - The "why" question I mentioned wasn't intended to include observable/measurable things like why water freezes when it's cold enough. When science proves a point, religion can't have valid claim to the contrary. But religion does help some people answer the more vague questions that science can't yet answer, such as why matter (if that's the correct term) even existed at the time of the Big Bang. Religion can give certainty and meaning to these types of questions to people. Some people need certainty. But not me. I'm content knowing that I don't know the answers to these types of questions. To the extent I may be religious, my views are unique enough that most religious people would call me a heretic. Of course religious zealots have killed a lot of innocent people. But Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists. No one group is lily white. Which is why I don't care at all about the labels people give themselves. What matters is how someone acts and treats others. All the rest is just a means to an end.
Martin a couple of things. First you seem to be confusing faith with action. Faith does not justify acting against the tenents of that faith for personal gain (72 virgins). As expat said there are plenty of athiests who act the same in the name of something. So no I have no respect for suicide bomber and the like. Faith is always ok.... using faith as an excuse for bad acts is never ok. Like wise not having faith is ok with me but excusing bad acts because one doesn't have to answer to a god is not ok. I would say that the call to be better that has propelled us forward this last 2000 years can be attributed to the people of Western Europe and North America being pushed and led by faith in the teachings of christ and the articles of the christian religion found in the gospel. There is a call for people to treat their neighbor as they would like to be treated and similar exhortations and that say man can be saved until he acts better that has changed the way we look at everything. The standard attack to that is to point out all the horrible deeds done in Christ's name and they certainly are many. Yet that would be a false measure. I think the true measure is the change and on any scale we act better than we did 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago 500 years ago, 100 years ago and 50 years ago. Tht cannot be said of the rest of the world except were and when western belief intruded. Martin the abolition movement was church led as were most of the civil rights efforts. Another positive aspect of christian theology is the concept of redemption and forgivness here on earth. Again it has inspired so many. To use a smal example look at AA . To be able to be redeemed by taking the path christ followed has brought many out of ruin. This is why I respect those with faith..let me say those who follow the tenents of the religon for every religon has a call for peace and good will towards man. I will never respect the bomber or the family that burns a widow on her husbands bier or or hangs a black man or takes revenge in the name of god.
Martin you confuse absense of evidence with proof of non existance. We had no evidence of atoms til the early 20th century. Does that mean they didn't exist? Based on your standard of absolute knowledge the only way the world existed before Albert Einstein and his contemporaries is because of God or was the explanation of earth air fire & water enough for you. There is also a difference between saying physics doesn't disprove something and taking that to mean it is proven. Our book of knowledge is very incomplete and your certainty that god doesn't exist is as insane as any religous devine's certainty of god (if you use your standard of proof). I have no evidence god exists but like Red, I don't say he can't therefore we are agnostics not athiests.
