HitchandGo

Atheists can't believe something just because it would make us feel better, so we do what other people do besides pray. In my time of hopelessness, which religion would I pick and which god would I reach out to? Unlike religious people, I see all religions equally and therefore could not just go with one because it is popular in my region. You might see an atheist pray in these situations.. and it is always out of desperation more than actual belief. Grief, mourn, be with loved ones, ect are the ways problems may be dealt with. I don't see how prayer could possibly do anything other than comfort the person/people who are praying, I can't see how it could be more than a placebo effect at best. Example: Someone's friend is dying of cancer. They pray to the christian God to heal her. How can that actually make a difference? If it can't make a difference than prayer does nothing. If it does make a difference, then I am extremely disappointed in that God for healing people based on a popularity contest. What happens to the people who don't get prayers? Do they have a less chance of getting healed? If God can intervene and save someone's friend because of a prayer, then that means God interacts with the world to relieve suffering. This opens up a huge can of worms in terms of what God does and doesn't do and why.

Well... I don't like to say I "believe" in evolution, I just know what it is. I believe in it the same way I believe in gravity. As far as homosexuality, what does the chances of procreation have to do with morality? I approve it because... why not? If two people want to do something they find pleasurable in a consenting and non-damaging fashion, then have at it. Even if you don't consider it natural, what does that matter? The human species will go on despite the gays getting it on. Edit: And I think if you do a bit of research you will find what I have bolded from you is just flat out not true in every case.

Thanks I've enjoyed this discussion as well. I should have clarified my position on things; I am an agnostic atheist. This doesn't mean I'm in the middle or something, it means I am completely agnostic and completely atheist. I am an atheist because I lack a belief in any deity because I have no reason to believe any to be credible. BUT I am also agnostic, which refers to how sure I am there is no supreme being. I would never rule out the possibility that a creator or intelligent being exists and I actually think it is a very interesting idea that could be true. Jumping from that idea to any specific religion just seems wrong for a variety of reasons for me personally. But I don't think any atheist who values his or her objectiveness, logic, and reason could definitively say there can't be a creator and still pretend like they understand science. If somehow definitive proof came out that God was real, I would be a theist, but of course my definition of proof is more stringent than anecdotal evidence (since all religions can provide this as well as holy books). If anyone has anymore questions or anything else they want to riff about let me know.

The reason Religion and Science CAN work is when religion accepts science. When religion makes assumptions on no evidence whatsoever, this is literally the opposite of science. And your argument about us not having the answers to the hard questions about the Big Bang and the rest... this is another God of the gaps argument. I could have convinced anyone who lived 10,000 ago that Zeus must exist because we don't have answers to what lightning could be.

Having trouble quoting corysold, so: How did all of the matter of the known universe fit into a spot as small as a pencil eraser? Where did all of this matter come from? What is the universe expanding into? What caused all of this matter to explode into space/time seemingly defying all known physics at the moment of the bang? WE DON"T KNOW YET! And that is something scientists can admit. We just don't have the answers to those questions.... yet. But to say any of these things violates the laws of physics is not true... we just don't understand the physics behind these questions yet. Your argument is a pretty common one and it is called "the God of the gaps." You are pointing to things humans haven't been able to figure out yet and simply plugging in the Christian God because we don't have the answers yet. This is not rational, this is jumping to conclusions. Imagine you are a person living 10,000 years ago and I ask you: How can you explain how water falls from the sky and the sky never runs out of it? How can you explain how that bright ball of light in the sky gives us warmth? Surely these things are unexplainable and must be from the god of my specific religion! If today's "impossible" questions are your evidence for God then God must be an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and smaller as humans find real answers to these questions.

You clearly said religion is something atheists hate. And I believe abortion is wrong, so it looks like we are pretty close on the moral landscape, only I think homosexuality is perfectly natural in nature and morally acceptable. I'm glad you support gay rights, something most religious people don't.

Okay I think I get what you are saying and I agree think the actual process of evolution has room for modification... but evolution does happen even if what we know about that process changes a bit. And I see what your saying about it not being fact. I think we are just arguing semantics possibly. Evolution is a fact to me in the same way that reality is a fact. Everything we know leads us to conclude that it exists so it is essentially fact for all intents and purposes in the same way we can conclude that reality is fact and we aren't just super advanced A.I. simulations from another dimension.

You aren't winning any arguments you know, you are just coming off as an ass to all religious people here. Most posters here already seem to have negative stereotypes about what atheism is and you are just perpetuating that ignorance. Show a little more tact.

This is not what science is about. Science is not like religion...it is instead a process of finding truth by more and more research, observation and testing. Science changes and it is always improving. In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences You need to re-examine the way you think about people... I know it's easier to simply put the "enemy" or opposing perspective in a tiny box that fits your terms, but this is not the case. I know it might be hard to believe, but atheists are mostly just like everyone else and can be very good people who live moral lives (some atheists might even argue that they hold themselves to a higher moral standard than the bible governs; with gay rights and things like that). Most don't hate religion we just aren't convinced that any particular religion is more right than any other. ATHEIST = HATEFUL is so low effort and very naive.

I'm going to have to just let the evolution thing rest... if you really can't see and understand the overwhelming evidence that the evolution occurs and that earth is just a tad older than 6000 years old (4.5 billion years older in fact) then I really don't think I'm going to do anything to convince you here. I guess we need to just agree to disagree. And you might want to research Einstein and the meaning behind that quote before you try to use it against his fellow atheists In regards to what you said that I quoted, I think you need to research atheism more before you take an opinion like that. Calling atheism short sited and agnosticism more rational is incredibly ironic in the sense that not fully exploring the definitions is short sited itself. Let's go to square one and I'll define all the positions a person can be in regards to Christianity: - Theism/Atheism describe your belief or lack of belief in a god. If you believe in a god, you are theist. If you do not believe in a god, you are atheist. Atheism doesn't necessarily mean you reject the possibility of a god, just that you disbelieve (i.e. lack a belief) in a god! - Agnosticim/Gnosticism refer to the certainty of that belief. If you have no doubt at all there is/isn't a god, you are gnostic. Any doubt that a god does/doesn't exist and you are agnostic. All theists and atheists are also either agnostic or gnostic. In regards to Christianity, you can only be in one of four categories: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, and gnostic theist. There is literally no such position as purely agnostic. Think about asking a person who thinks they are agnostic if they believe in god. They will answer something like "I don't know or "I have no opinion since we can't know." This means they don't hold a belief that there is a god (and also don't reject it) so they are atheist by definition.

I don't think you are understanding what a scientific theory is... It is not just some random guess or hypothesis and it not just a "theory" as the word is used outside of science. Evolution is a theory and it is a fact. True, we may not know exact specifics behind the biology of why and how certain mechanisms have evolved, but we know that they did. Specifics would make things neater for our understanding of exactly how evolution occurred, but it is impossible to know since evolution takes place over such a large period of time. These "holes in evolution" you talk about don't actually discredit the theory in any way. Just like Tenacious said, gravity is just a theory, meaning we don't know it's mechanism or how it works, but it is also a fact, because we have observed that it exists. Actually this is extremely accurate and I don't quite understand how it is a bad thing. We are replacing religion (searching for knowledge and truth in a completely faith based way) with science (searching for truth and knowledge in the form of testable explanations that can be logically and rationally explained.) Also the key word here is replaced, not substituted. Atheists replace religion because we believe the system doesn't give knowledge or truth. The religion system is replaced with a scientific system that atheists believe that knowledge can be obtained from.

Just saw this thread and there a a few things I thought I'd mention. First, don't let the topic creator represent what you think about atheism. That's is as unfair and is like me, an atheist, watching a documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church and believing that all Christians are that way. I won't apologize for him/her any more than any Christian should have to apologize for Fred Phelps. Calling all religious people stupid is an awful way to begin a discussion. Second, I don't find the evolution "debate" interesting and I don't think any properly educated Christian would either. This is 2012... believing Adam and Eve literally happened and that evolution is a lie is simply delusional. Why not just accept it as the fact that it is and instead argue that the god you believe in played a role in it (like most Catholics do)? Thirdly, saying science is a crutch for atheists made my laugh a bit. I really don't understand this idea in the least and if someone would shed some light on it, that might be worth discussing.

There is no way this will happen. South Florida is stuck in the Big East which will essentially be the new C-USA in a couple years. With the talent he has at ND I'm sure he knows that in a year or two he will get an offer from a real program.

The "eye test" thing plays a role. Not sure how I'd actually vote but I think Bama beats A&M 7 or 8 times out of ten. Same for the other SEC teams. There is no way undefeated ND gets leaped by Bama anyway so they are the least of my concerns.

On the Michigan forums, they are concerned about Redfield leaving because they think USC might want to jump on one of their safety targets. Some of the posters there claim that a USC commit's father said Redfield wanted to play receiver at the next level and that was one of the reasons he decommitted. They go on to say Oregon and ND are probably telling him what he wants to hear, ect. Don't know if there is any truth to it, but they don't seem like they have much of a dog in the fight so I don't know. He projects well at receiver as well, just not as high as he is at safety. Could be complete BS... just throwing it out there.