I don't think I have one. I grew up in a house that didn't go to church but celebrated Christmas and Easter. I've studied some religion at college but mostly just base my beliefs from reading, conversations with people, and introspection.

Angels in the architecture? What kind of bs is that? I see unicorns flying about my butt . What kind of idiotic question is that about morality? Morality is whatever keeps a society in place.

I don't kill people because it's against the rules of our society. Not because it's not a moral thing to do. If we lived in a different society where everyone was attacking me you're god damn right I'm going to start choppin heads off.

Morality is the biggest bunch of bullshit I've heard. It's completely dependent on the society, not a God, not a priest.

If you look at a tribe that has had no outside contact with the world what morals do they have? They have the ones that keep their society going. That's it.

I can look at everything in a scientific method. You know why? Because it's error proof. Science can get something wrong but by the scientific method it can self-correct. It doesn't need a message from God. It doesn't rely on faith.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

There are many basic concepts that science cannot prove. Religion being one of them. And no, you cannot look at everything in a scientific method and get answers. Science is not omniscient.

The fact that people would induce that science can't prove morality, therefore it does not exist is weak.

Note: I'm not shitting on science, but it can't be relied upon for every answer.

That's a joke right? Science can't be relied upon for every answer? Science hasn't yet given us every answer because that's not what science is. Science is the methodology to achieving answers, not necessarily the answer itself.

Science doesn't need to prove that morality doesn't exist. By scientific method you should prove it does. Science has proven that what you consider as morality is really just a bunch of societal norms that bring stability to an open and free society.

You're completely backwards in your thinking, that's why you don't accept science wholly. Your justification that science hasn't proven everything is absolutely ridiculous. Religion hasn't proven a god damn thing.

I don't believe in God because there has been absolutely no proof of it's existence. I don't believe in God because I hate religion or I hate God. It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

First of all, let me say that is not my intention to change your beliefs. I love this discussions too, basically because I was a catholic for most of my life, even were an altar boy, fortunately not an abused one, so no, my atheism doesn't come from grudge or something, but from a deep sense of respect of the human race.

Yes, most of the people in the planet believes in supernatural, but even that has a scientific explanation, why we believe, and how it was very useful for our survival when we were in the early steps of our evolution. The majority of people keeps believing because thats how they were rised up. Religion is implanted by the parents and most of all is tradition. The fact that most people believe in supernatural doesn't make the myth fact. Is almost like saying that because soccer is more popular around the globe (and in some places is almost a religion) is a better sport than football.




You're getting atheism wrong. There's no such thing as western atheism, or a know it all atheist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a superbeing, specially a personal one. And that lack of faith is in fact the uncertainty of things religious people are certain of. Yes, religion tells you to believe without asking why, while atheism comes precisely from asking why and how. Atheism is having a boom because of the internet. The scientific information is there in the grasp for those who want to know a little more about how the universe works, and how we came to be.


On the subject of morality, 12evanf, there's also studies about how we develop the sense of morality, about what's good and what's wrong. Simplifying, we have morals because it was good for our survival. Religions in the world are anything but moral. Science has told us why we needed religions, but also has studied how it forms and grows.

I saw a debate where a woman told the scientist that science could not tell if a certain flower was beautiful or not. Yes, said the scientist, a study based on sales could tell us how we perceive the beauty of such flower, compared to other flowers. Besides, science also tells us that the flower isn't beautiful to please us, but to be atractive to insects and get polinized.

We live in a natural world and science help us to live in this world, and grow as humanity. There's a reason why when religion had full power, life expectancy was only 20 years. Other questions like how many angels can dance in the tip of a pin (or unicorns in Sonic's butt), are not scientific questions because they are simply not part of the natural world.

This is the straining that people undergo to convince themselves that morality is flexible, but there are sights and experiences that every human being on the planet, except the mentally ill, cannot fathom. Morality is deeply rooted in the human condition.




This is the classic misunderstanding of the scientific method. Many scientists these days don't even acknowledge the distinction between observable science and forensic science, misapplying the unique tools of each to the other and walking around believing that the present holds the key to understanding the past instead of vice versa. You can't use the scientific method to unequivocably prove something that you didn't observe and that cannot be repeated, yet scientists treat certain modern theories as unequivocably proven and foundationally unquestionable, theory only in name.

That's why I don't buy science as sufficient to explain everything. It's not that I ignore science, as most opponents of intelligent design presume; it's that I think most everyone else doesn't use science right themselves. Refusing to acknowledge that science has limitations is just silly.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

That's bullshit. Deeply rooted? What morals are you talking about? What specific moral is rooted? What was "put there by God"? Why in the world would you credit a God for this when evolution and necessity would be just as good of answers if not better?


[/quote]

You continue to discredit science with something that actually isn't discrediting it. If it was not observed and we came up with a theory to explain an action and that explanation was disproven science evolves. It accepts the answer that is proven. As opposed to religion which just accepts. No wavering. Everything is faith.

Science doesn't have limitations, us as humans have current limitations.

Science hasn't explained everything because everything hasn't been scientifically explained. Discrediting science because it hasn't explained everything to you? As opposed to Religion which explains everything with absolute and complete utter bullshit?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Science can't prove basic concepts like Historical Truth and Causation, because science isn't built to prove things that aren't provable. Proving an unknown creator is such an instance.

Your limiting science based on your understanding of how things work. Science at one point hadn't proven one single fact. But as time goes on and our abilities expand it's not impossible to suggest that using the scientific methods we'll be able to answer all questions however improbable.

Once again, use something besides faith to prove a creator and we can talk about that. Because using the currently-unanswerable as proof is childish.

There are invisible unicorns dancing inside your sternum that will make you rich if you give me $20. Using your thought process I can easily get $20 out of you because it's not unprovable.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Then you'll always be as dumb as science is and never look for new truths. Maybe science will one day prove a creator. Sit on your hands and wait for science to tell you what to believe.

Lol. I'd rather be as dumb as science then pretend i know things based in absolute bs.

I have plenty of theories but i don't accept it as fact until proven.

But have fun believing in things based in fairy tales.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Atheists Irk Einstein

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Einstein hated atheists AND religious people. He didn't have any evidence of either side being right or wrong, and just didn't care. He thought both sides were asinine to believe heavily, either for or against.

Einstein believed in a God that has nothing to do with these bullshit major religions we have.

I'm not an atheist. I don't deny an existence of a God, I deny that there has been any proof of a God. I completely deny any truth surrounding any modern major religion.

Science hasn't proven there is no God. Science may NEVER prove that there is no God. Science, as it has so far, only proven that out of what we know there is no present sign of a God.

Trying to pass off Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism or any other major religion as fact or any minutia of truth is 100% bullshit. The simple fact that these major, competing religions are even in existence is proof enough that none of these are correct.

If there was a God, it would have little care to our doings.

The day Science understands consciousness may be the day we understand our 'Creator'.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Ha. That's a good one. Yeah, Christianity and all other major religions will dry up overnight once we understand the process of coming into existence from a mental aspect.

I just love to be lectured about science by religious people.



oh and

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

Science has done a great job answering "what is?" and not so great a job at "why is?" when it comes to our origins. If someone is religious, we might as well tar and feather them on this board. Science can't, and I mean CAN NOT prove many things, saying that you'll wait because it will someday is not true. Epistemology and Philosophy are now moot because of Almighty Science? What a crock of shit, you people are lazy.

Cause and effect is as far more mathematical than you think.

Philosophy exists in when science can not answer a question. Eventually science replaces philosophy. Pretending though that philosophy should be understood as fact is absolutely ridiculous.

You're really not giving science any credit. Science could prove everything. Assuming it can't prove something because it hasn't -- I can see now why religion is so easy for you.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

What religion have I identified with ever on this board? You don't know because I've never made any claim. You just act self-righteous because you ignorantly point to science for your answers, but you have none yourself. The Big Bang is a "what" answer not a "why." I see design in the universe, as many people smarter than you or I have also seen.

I'm self righteous but you're the one telling me that you "see design in the universe". But since I base my beliefs on facts I'm self righteous?

Where you've seen design I don't. I don't assume things had to be created that are beyond my understanding. I don't need to have an answer. I don't need to make up an answer or buy into philosophies that sound good because I can comprehend them.

"Ignorantly point to science for your answers but you have none yourself"

Wait, so since I have sat around making up things in my head by myself I'm ignorant?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012