Perhaps, but you're apparently also very judgemental, which is a common trait among extremely religious people. Let's examine your statement. Yes, freedom to act in way other than those prescribed by the Christian God Almighty should be guilt-inducing. What a joke. Clearly, no pejorative implications for agnostics here. If you're going to speak this way, expect fast and fiery responses from those of us who value freedom and reject blind orthodoxy. The ridiculous claim that 'it takes just as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in a Creator God' is so baseless and so wrong-headed, it's difficult to know how to refute it. How does one refute a 4-year-old child's contention that the family should move to Disneyland and live with Mickey Mouse? Science itself, as a result of the imperative for proof that's built into the scientific method, is the institution that showed us that our notions of causality were wrong. Science itself discovered the fact that our previous notions of what is 'provable' had to be radically altered. Scientists are leading the charge to find alternatives to the dualist philosophy which guided them during the birth of modern civilization. Give them a break! Modern science is very young and it may be unrecognizable in 1000 years. Radical Christians and other radical theists only came up with the argument that 'science is as much faith as religious mysticism' very recently, as part of the PR push which includes the Creation Rebranded (also knows as Intelligent Design) and whose ultimate end is to 'remake (Western) society in a manner more consistent with theistic ideals'. Scientific progress is the human spirit. Scientific inquiry and curiousity represents the absolute best of human endeavour. The theists that would prevent us from breakthroughs which would improve the human condition by preventing stem cell research, for example, are some of the most heartless people I know. The radical theists (such as yourself, as indicated by the text quoted above) say to us 'Can you prove that God does not exist? No? Well then, that's proof that God exists'. Nothing more needs to be said about either the willingness or the ability of people who would make such statements to think rationally. By the way, would you be willing to reveal what username you usually use here? I noticed you registered up a new one to post in this thread. Please remember, lying is un-Christian.
Science is empirically testable; God's existence is not. The fossil evidence refutes the Genesis creation account. The history of life on this planet is easily explained by natural processes. However, one may believe in God's existence nonetheless, even though there is no evidence for scuh.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Another definition from websters online http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/atheism Atheism Noun 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Maybe your definition of atheism is from an old dictionary. I can't find my Websters from way back in my college days but when I do I'll look it up and see what the definition for atheism was in the 70's.
Man is an "image"...as in, "graven image". He is not like God at all. There is no heavenly pattern in him, except perhaps the opposite of heaven.
Atheists do not assert non-existence. They conclude non-existence. In a way, an atheist is agnostic in that should those who assert existence, prove existence, both the atheist and agnostic will embrace existence. It's really that simple. Could oxygen be seen before a STM was invented? No, not with the naked eye. But experiments were done long ago which, while not as yet seen, proved the existence of oxygen. See the difference?
Why would a non-believer be scared of such a wonderful notion such as salvation? That doesn't make any sense. Doesn't salvation and forgiveness go hand-in-hand? What kind of lives do you think non-believers live? I find them in many respects but not across the board, to be more "moral" than those who consider themselves to be saved. Non-believers know that should the bible be true, they will spend an eternity in hell. But... To be frank, believers don't realize that should they have "chosen" to believe the wrong religion (assuming one might be true) or wrong doctrine based on a particular religion (sect or denomination) they too will spend an eternity in hell. So really, what's your opinion worth without justification and proof?
You're asking for rational analysis from someone who has no need to examine facts. Objective facts are not necessary when all knowledge is received from God. History shows us in no uncertain terms that religious zealots are the most immoral people who ever lived. nyxtrader said above that he pities all those who haven't accepted Jesus Christ into their lives as their saviour. Notice he did not say Allah or the Buddha. If you ask a radical Christian why it is that he thinks his particular version of the God story is any more true than others, and why someone in Timbuktu should accept the Western version of the God story (including the whole 'Jesus Christ as Son of God' thing) his eyes will glaze over, he'll stutter a few times and then start quoting scripture. nyxtrader's comments are a great example of why Christianity is a stagnant religion. That, combined with the fact that its leaders tend to be caught out in morality busts. Hmmm... I wonder why that is?
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930 I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. -- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)
vhehn, you beat me to it! I had just noticed that ridiculous claim about Einstein by Joab. This exemplifies the thought process of the believer. Joab read somewhere that Einstein said 'God does not play dice'. Without reading the Clark biography or anything else, he states that Einstein was a religious man or that, even more absurdly, he was a 'devote' Jew. There is no need for proof, no need for corroboration, no need for objective analysis What is true is what you decide is true. There is no need to confirm it. It's actually sad, isn't it? Fear. As I have always maintained, religious belief in the masses is nothing more than a panacea for the fear of death. Claims of religious belief by religious leaders are usually engendered by a thirst for power.
Quote from traderNik: Perhaps, but you're apparently also very judgemental, which is a common trait among extremely religious people.[/quote] hey traderNik, Nah, I try not to be judgemental but I will say, according to my belief, that not believing has already been judged not by me but by the Living God. I just like sharing what I believe and am in no way trying to force anything on anybody. You know, just laying it out there for you to think about. quote from traderNik The radical theists (such as yourself, as indicated by the text quoted above) say to us 'Can you prove that God does not exist? No? Well then, that's proof that God exists'. Nothing more needs to be said about either the willingness or the ability of people who would make such statements to think rationally. As far as being "radical" in the sense that I believe there is only one way to keep from spending an eternity separated from God (that being God's plan of salvation) I admit, I'm guilty. Beyond that I would say that you are the one being judgemental. Let's both face it. Neither of us are going to prove a theory either way. It wouldn't be a theory if we could. I'm just trying to figure out, since the advances in science that have been made since Darwin, how anyone could believe his theory anymore. quote from traderNik By the way, would you be willing to reveal what username you usually use here? I noticed you registered up a new one to post in this thread. Please remember, lying is un-Christian. lol, since we're talking about all this proof business, does the fact that I don't have many posts under my username prove that I am posting under a new username? Truth = just signed up on ET last week. It boils down to this, traderNik. There was a time when I was a non-believer. No man could have changed my way of thinking with a stick of dynamite. Thankfully, someone came along that cared enough about me to share God's plan of salvation. I can tell you it wasn't that person that caused me to change. It was God dealing with my conscience and opening my eyes to how far out what I was believing really was. After all, would you not want to know that what you are basing your beliefs on is right or wrong? All I can do is tell you what caused me to give it some thought and ultimately change the way I believe. Let's just say YOU are right and I still want to be a believer of the Bible. I will live my life under it's guidance... being kind, being a good husband/father, helping my fellow man, etc... When I die, I'm just DEAD. No Heaven, no Hell. I will have spent my days being a good person according to the Bible, no sweat... no big loss. I'm just dead. But now let's just say that I'M right and there IS a Heaven and a Hell. Where would you spend your eternity? I sure would hate to be in Hell and have the rest of eternity to think about how I passed up the opportunity to be in Heaven and in the presence of the Almighty God that created this whole universe. I know, I know I'm sounding like a fanatic Bible thumper but that's what I believe. I mean hey, I'm a Christian. I'm supposed to want to share the Bible and what Jesus has done for me and all mankind. IF we believe in Him rc