Chosen from a list is not the same as a vote. Good day sir.

And there you prove the point, Skybird.

You say atheists don't attack - yet you end your statement with what is clearly an over-generalizing attack on those of faith.

Pascals wager has to be the lamest excuse for religious belief, ever. I doubt Forest Gump would be fooled by lip service, let alone a god. My atheism is a bit like it in reverse mind. I am going to be so ticked off if I am wrong, there will be war in the after life, I guarantee it. I will need some pretty hefty answers about why all these suspiciously self contradictory books, why the allowing of evil, why the lack of communication, why oh why Justin Bieber/Lady Gaga etc. to put me off. Otherwise it'll be BOOM beddie bye bye god. :stare:

Joking of course, I'll be locked in a room full of my friends (the ugly ones) with 'The Final Countdown' playing on a loop, 20' chopsticks and a giant plate full of couscous and a white hot poker up my behind for all eternity no doubt. :/\\!!
Oh and flies, there will be lots of flies, I hate flies. The only creatures to ever tempt me away from non violence.

I think we are talking about two different things. What I was referring to is personal freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with the state. What I as an individual citizen am allowed to say regarding religion or for that matter anything. I should not be hinder from expressing myself. Nothing I can say as an individual citizen should infringe on "the cost of the freedom of others." Of course if I'm slandering them or suggesting that they should be harmed, that is a different matter. But to suggest that God exists? To talk openly about Him?

Surely you're not saying people should keep silent about that?

If so what about...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/bJomQ2i9D...Vqwso1_500.jpg

Now that's freedom of expression.

I think you are looking at an extreme scenario here. It's just not going to happen. Not in a democratic state with freedom of expression and a diverse mix of viewpoints. Especially in the USA. To many people with guns.:haha: Nor in my country, Canada. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that if a country that already has separation of Church and State were to allow this to happen, religion playing a role in government, then something is very wrong in that country.

Proof that there IS a God
 

Now, I'm a Christian and I believe in the Big Bang and evoloution, but the Big Bang just doesn't work without some sort of God.

How? Here's how:

OK, so the current theory is that before the Big Bang, the Universe was tiny, perhaps the size of an ant. The Big Bang and subsequent expansion was caused by the only two items of matter, two atoms, collided and exploded.

Problem: Where did those Atoms come from?

Non-Religous explanation: Maybe they where left over from a previous universe, which had collapsed on itself, leaving only 2 atoms left.

But how did that universe form?

Religous Explanation: A God made those 2 atoms, and made them collide.

Also, the Vatican has said that the Earth being made in 7 days is probably just a Myth.

Would any Atheists care to argue with me?

I'm not an atheist per se, but the common-sense argument is why does the creation of the universe have to presuppose intentional, intelligent design? Why couldn't it have happened by accident?

The typical creationist/deist explanations usually point to the complexity and balance of the universe, but the further both philosophy and theoretical physics go, the more reason there is to see nothing inherently "intelligent" or "meaningful" about the fact of the universe's existence and shape.There is no probabilistic reason that something as complex as the current universe or human life couldn't exist by pure coincidence. What's more, there is evidence that the universe is far from "perfect", "balanced" and "beautiful", but is in fact full of bizarreness, disbalance and chaos that can't be reduced to some kind of governing principle - instead, there is a view that the universe is a place of difference, where no two things, forces, moments, or even atoms are truly alike. Certainly a lot of post-modern thinking would tend in this direction.

So, the most advanced atheist argument simply has a different basis entirely. Whereas the deist argument seeks to explain a God as the reason for the "Big Bang", the post-modern atheist might ask why you need to look for a reductive reason at all.

What a joke. Tak is one of the most unobtrusive religious people around here, and you deign to call him essentially a zealot and accuse him of pushing his beliefs on people.

For shame indeed.

All the more ironic considering who has a reputation for zeal around here...

There's a lot to be said for militant atheism!

Good point.

The problem with your summation is that it presupposes some sort of knowledge. Your 'Non-Religious explanation' isn't an explanation at all, just a "maybe". Your 'Religious' explanation is an explanation, but it's based on a supposition, a pre-existing belief. This makes both of them nothing more than guesses. The only real possible answer to the question of where the atoms come from is "I don't know".

Scientific theories are based on observed phenomena. Science is incapable of explaing why things exist, only how. Unless there is some evidence for any supposition, it ceases to be theory and becomes a guess.


"Conversation would be vastly improved by the constant use of four simple words: I do not know."
-Andre Maurois

That's because there is no scientific explanation. Which proves my point: the universe was formed by some higher being.

How do you know that? Not "Why do you believe it, but how do you know?" Is there the slightest bit of evidence that leads you to that conclusion? Until you realize that where there are no facts there is no knowledge, you'll continue to live in a fantasy world.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there isn't a higher being. I'm not saying the Christians are wrong. I'm not even saying the Muslims are wrong. What I'm saying is that I don't know, and neither do you. Unless you have a fact you can point to that shows that the universe was formed by some higher being, then you're only guessing, and your "point" is not proven, and in fact is no point at all.

^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe I should have rephrased that.

What I mean is that the God theory is the most likely.

You can't honestly expect me to write perfectly structured arguments, I mean, I'm only 13 years old, at school, a CATHOLIC school, with a teacher walking around, and I'm saying that the existence of God isn't fact, but it's the most likely explanation.

Things could get ugly.

No, that doesn't prove anything, actually. Nor should it, because last I checked, religion is about beliefs, not proofs.

Therein lies the crux of the issue, I think. The thing is that religion/spirituality vs. science is a false opposition. In their proper form, they do not even ask the same questions, and while they both look at problems of existence, they start literally on the opposite ends. They don't negate each other.

The problems start when people mistake one for the other, i.e. believing that spiritual revelations are more valid than observation at explaining "how", or believing that observation definitively explains "why". And then the arguing starts.

I think both sides are equally guilty of trying to negate the other through inappropriate use of two modes of knowledge, which in the case of religious fundamentalism turns into replacement of observation with dogma, and in the case of militant atheism assigns observation the divine property of being positive proof that nothing but what is observed is possible.

To me, if you discard all the nonsense, scientific method and spiritual revelation are simply two different modes of thinking that move towards the same existential problems from opposite sides. It's silly to confuse one with the other, or pretend that one has precedence over the other. Unfortunately, the nature of social institutions that stand behind religion and science in our world is such that they have to promote this division in order to thrive. This has nothing to do with the essence of things, and everything to do with the politics of being human.

Absolutely. Religion is always about belief. I cannot explain nor convince you of my view. It is something you either feel or it is not. To say that the fact that the formation of the universe can not conclusively explained proves the correctness of my faith is ridiculous.

And thank you for the kind words, both CCIP and mookie.