Do you belive in God?

[Kaninov]

you should take "Devout Follower" off, because not ALL christians/other god-Worshipping Religions are Bible-Molesting Religious Zealots who live and die by the scripture. Me, For Example.

[New Heliopolis]

Okay, when someone provides me evidence that a different explanation from a god is the case, I'll change my mind.

It's difficult to post all of science on this forum, but that is the explanation.

Really?

No.

None of science does that.

At all.

How something functions=/=what brought it to functionality.

In fact, how something functions in certain situations=/=how it functions in all.

It goes on...

[Farnhamia]

I'll say it: I know there is no god. I'll reconsider if and when someone shows me concrete evidence that there is one. And that does not mean "Ooooh, you can't explain this! God exists!"

The phrasing of this question makes it out that you are hostile to theistic religion as a concept (which I seriously hope isn't the case). Is this true?
What of monistic idealism or pantheistic faiths? Are they to be destroyed as non-rational pursuits as well?

Hostile? No, not really, though I get annoyed sometimes at the hand-waving that goes on among the apologists. I seldom hold grudges, though.

As for monistic idealism, sounds like New Age "We're All God" hippie crap. Sorry, but I outgrew that decades ago. And why did you use Let Me Google That For You, instead of just linking the Wiki article?

[Xenohumanity]

The phrasing of this question makes it out that you are hostile to theistic religion as a concept (which I seriously hope isn't the case). Is this true?
What of monistic idealism or pantheistic faiths? Are they to be destroyed as non-rational pursuits as well?

Hostile? No, not really, though I get annoyed sometimes at the hand-waving that goes on among the apologists. I seldom hold grudges, though.

As for monistic idealism, sounds like New Age "We're All God" hippie crap. Sorry, but I outgrew that decades ago. And why did you use Let Me Google That For You, instead of just linking the Wiki article?

1. Cool, cool. I'm Catholic (and rather open-minded considering that fact and its baggage), and I think the apologists are aiming at the wrong people at well.
2. As did I. Just positing an option for you to consider.
3. In retrospect, that was a bit condescending on my part (I apologize), but I think I was hoping you'd google it without clicking on the link, but considering people would consider that the purpose of the link, I derped so hard I herped.

[Izzyshipper]

I wouldn't go that far, personally, but their posistion is abused.

How?

Apart from the covering up of child sex scandals, they publish a religous doctrine that tries to claim a scientific principle is wrong. Namely that condoms do not stop the transmission of HIV, this is stupid and I don't doubt has caused at least one needless death.

[Xenohumanity]

Apart from the covering up of child sex scandals, they publish a religous doctrine that tries to claim a scientific principle is wrong. Namely that condoms do not stop the transmission of HIV, this is stupid and I don't doubt has caused at least one needless death.

I know, flawed reasoning, but it's the best the church can do without tearing apart the concept of marriage as an institution to put men and women together and reproduce (doggy style is okay if you like) in an ethically responsible manner. They figure that condoms takes the spiritual, ethical, and relationship-based aspects completely out of sex (no consequences = more likely to make bad decisions), which is a very very slippery slope from a moral standpoint.

[Farnhamia]

How?

Apart from the covering up of child sex scandals, they publish a religous doctrine that tries to claim a scientific principle is wrong. Namely that condoms do not stop the transmission of HIV, this is stupid and I don't doubt has caused at least one needless death.

Okay, that's reasonable. I just ... when people post things like the one I questioned, I wonder why they didn't explain what they meant up front?

[Four-sided Triangles]

"I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so obviously, mine must be right!"

Scientific theories ARE REQUIRED to be testable. I mean, that's the very rudimentary basis of science.

[Sedon (Ancient)]

I'll say it: I know there is no god. I'll reconsider if and when someone shows me concrete evidence that there is one. And that does not mean "Ooooh, you can't explain this! God exists!"

The phrasing of this question makes it out that you are hostile to theistic religion as a concept (which I seriously hope isn't the case). Is this true?
What of monistic idealism or pantheistic faiths? Are they to be destroyed as non-rational pursuits as well?

Because they have just as much proof as standard theism?

[Izzyshipper]

Apart from the covering up of child sex scandals, they publish a religous doctrine that tries to claim a scientific principle is wrong. Namely that condoms do not stop the transmission of HIV, this is stupid and I don't doubt has caused at least one needless death.

Okay, that's reasonable. I just ... when people post things like the one I questioned, I wonder why they didn't explain what they meant up front?

Meh, couldn't be bothered, I thougt it was rather well known.

[Farnhamia]

Hostile? No, not really, though I get annoyed sometimes at the hand-waving that goes on among the apologists. I seldom hold grudges, though.

As for monistic idealism, sounds like New Age "We're All God" hippie crap. Sorry, but I outgrew that decades ago. And why did you use Let Me Google That For You, instead of just linking the Wiki article?

1. Cool, cool. I'm Catholic (and rather open-minded considering that fact and its baggage), and I think the apologists are aiming at the wrong people at well.
2. As did I. Just positing an option for you to consider.
3. In retrospect, that was a bit condescending on my part (I apologize), but I think I was hoping you'd google it without clicking on the link, but considering people would consider that the purpose of the link, I derped so hard I herped.

I wouldn't have thought that by posting a link to monistic idealism you were advocating it. You were quite clear in asking what I thought of it.

I don't think religions or non-rational beliefs should be destroyed. Believe what you like. I myself believe that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were real people (drives my Lady nuts). All I ask is that believers not claim that their personal mythology is a substitute for science, and not ask that I "just believe" in it.

[Izzyshipper]

Apart from the covering up of child sex scandals, they publish a religous doctrine that tries to claim a scientific principle is wrong. Namely that condoms do not stop the transmission of HIV, this is stupid and I don't doubt has caused at least one needless death.

I know, flawed reasoning, but it's the best the church can do without tearing apart the concept of marriage as an institution to put men and women together and reproduce (doggy style is okay if you like) in an ethically responsible manner. They figure that condoms takes the spiritual, ethical, and relationship-based aspects completely out of sex (no consequences = more likely to make bad decisions), which is a very very slippery slope from a moral standpoint.

It wouldn't bother me as much if they simply said "Dont have sex with someone with HIV, Condoms are not permitted under any circumstance." It is the use of people's faith to supress knowledge that bugs me. They must know it works, any Physician would tell them. They are in my opinion outright lying.

[Xenohumanity]

I don't think religions or non-rational beliefs should be destroyed. Believe what you like. I myself believe that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were real people (drives my Lady nuts). All I ask is that believers not claim that their personal mythology is a substitute for science, and not ask that I "just believe" in it.

1. Cool.
2. I now want to hear your evidence that Holmes and Watson were real so I can believe.

[New Heliopolis]

"I can't imagine how one could prove (x theory of the universe) wrong, so obviously, mine must be right!"

Scientific theories ARE REQUIRED to be testable. I mean, that's the very rudimentary basis of science.

That's why the varied theories about the universe's creation are around, right?

[Four-sided Triangles]

That's why the varied theories about the universe's creation are around, right?

They do make different predictions. Unfortunately, the differences are too minute to measure at this point in time, so they can't be distinguished yet. Of course, you could just claim that all of them are pulled out of physicists' asses, because lord knows, posting with an authoritative attitude about subjects you know fuck-all about is perfectly fine.

[New Heliopolis]

That's why the varied theories about the universe's creation are around, right?

They do make different predictions. Unfortunately, the differences are too minute to measure at this point in time, so they can't be distinguished yet.

Exactly.

Of course, you could just claim that all of them are pulled out of physicists' asses, because lord knows, posting with an authoritative attitude about subjects you know fuck-all about is perfectly fine.

Not quite what I said. I said their theories are completely godsdamn untestable, and, well, what you said, which is that the differences are pretty damn minute.

So, why the authoritative attitude, even before I posted?

[Four-sided Triangles]

Exactly.

No, not exactly. It's quite different from what you were claiming.

Not quite what I said. I said their theories are completely godsdamn untestable, and, well, what you said, which is that the differences are pretty damn minute.

No, the differences in observable predictions are minute. The differences in narrative are immense.

So, why the authoritative attitude, even before I posted?

Because I actually know a bit about the subject.

[New Heliopolis]

No, the differences in observable predictions are minute. The differences in narrative are immense.

Which, is, by the way, what I was talking about.

If you can't observe crap, you can't really test your theory out, can you?

But then, I know nothing of the subject.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Which, is, by the way, what I was talking about.

If you can't observe crap, you can't really test your theory out, can you?

But then, I know nothing of the subject.

We're building the probes AS WE SPEAK. We're going OUT OF OUR WAY to find a way to test these models. You can stop it with your false equivalency bullshit already.

[New Heliopolis]

We're building the probes AS WE SPEAK. We're going OUT OF OUR WAY to find a way to test these models. You can stop it with your false equivalency bullshit already.

Yet still, I find nothing observable.

By the way, you know that there are in fact scientific theories that were taken on--some of which are accepted today, that are the result of people trying to prove one of those theories.

Notably, god, but...yeah.

No false equivalency demonstrated with actual data.

[Norstal]

So, just to clarify, a question for any atheists arguing that the lack of evidence for God is the cause of their unbelief: do you not believe in anything that cannot be empirically proven to be true (or at least very likely)?

I don't believe in anything. I accept it. I accept math as something that cannot be empirically be proven, yet it works. Math is just is.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Yet still, I find nothing observable.

There's plenty of observable evidence for the big bang. The lack of observable evidence is for hypotheses on the "origin" of the big bang. As such, scientists tend not to treat the origins of the big bang as authoritatively as they do the big bang itself. They don't go around claiming that the big bounce MUST be true or than the brane-world collision model has been proven.

By the way, you know that there are in fact scientific theories that were taken on--some of which are accepted today, that are the result of people trying to prove one of those theories.

What does this sentence mean?

No false equivalency demonstrated with actual data.

Oh no, there's plenty of false equivalency, notably your attempt to claim that science also uses the argument from ignorance, when it does not.

[Zirconim]

I like to.

[Norstal]

What does this sentence mean?

I bet the guy is saying how Darwin would have never founded evolution if he wasn't searching for a way to prove God created every organism on this planet. Along with other scientists like Darwin.

Which is a bullshit argument. Their motivations are irrelevant. What matters is that the theory works.

[Farnhamia]

I don't think religions or non-rational beliefs should be destroyed. Believe what you like. I myself believe that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were real people (drives my Lady nuts). All I ask is that believers not claim that their personal mythology is a substitute for science, and not ask that I "just believe" in it.

1. Cool.
2. I now want to hear your evidence that Holmes and Watson were real so I can believe.

Perhaps I ought to have said that I "believe" they were real, but I know they aren't. Most of the time. Late at night, though ...

All I can do is refer you to the works of the late, great William S. Baring-Gould and you can decide.