Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science cannot disprove God, but the burden of proof is on the believer. As Carl said, faith is believing something is true in the absence of proof. It's virtually impossible to prove a negative, and science has better things to do.
Actually, catman, statistically, "science" can and has disproved God, simply because he's nothing more than a statistical improbability, sitting there along with an infinite number of other statistical improbabilities. He's no more probable that the often observed Flying Spaghetti Monster, or some two-headed fire-breathing dragon (I saw Beowolf, after all!), or an Apache coyote god, or anything else our mushroom-addled minds can possibly conjur up in the dark ,scary confines of an ancient cave.
On the other hand, there are a great many things we absolutely know now, categorically, proven time and again, including the actual ancient age of dino bones to the approximate age of the Universe, to the facts of Evolution to evidence from the Geologic Column.
All these things specifically refute the particular details of the Christian God, while there has been precious little refutinatin' of all the other non-Christian god-myths. So, effectively, they have a higher "credibility" score for highly improbable theist myths than Christianity.
Despite it's persistent global adherance for about 30% of the total population (fear-based, with the unlikely promise of an endlessly glorious afterlife), Christianity is on scientifically shaken and now fully collapsed logical ground. Despite what the frantic Christian websites would have you believe.
So, to my logical way of thinking, when something has been thoroughly discredited and it's key benchmarks shattered, it's pretty much gone from the scoreboard.
You remember the old placards? "God Is Dead!" It's true.
MaggieZ: Thanks for the Carl Sagan interview. He was truly a brilliant man. His wife stated that during his last minutes of life, a priest came to the door of his room to offer comfort. She told him, 'Carl doesn't want to believe in things; Carl wants to know things'. That may not be the exact quote, but it gets the point across.
Science cannot disprove God, but the burden of proof is on the believer. As Carl said, faith is believing something is true in the absence of proof. It's virtually impossible to prove a negative, and science has better things to do.
True. Though science has always to be on the Q.V for the periodical attempt of faith, feeling that science might be about to eliminate yet another Gap for God to tell it that there were some things in which it shouldn't dabble. Since the rise of creationism, this is getting even more important. Science itself is under attack both from the side of being told that it is wrong, because it constradicts the Bible (or, more recently, Quran) and also the threat of being bought out by fundamentalists. If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.
Science, of course, can only benefit from being questioned, and it should have nothing to fear from those who explain the flood as undersea tanks with the surface rising and falling to squeeze out the subterranean waters. With the cities on top remaining relatively intact, apart from being drowned. But it has to be prepared to fight its corner, not just to say it has other things to do.
I think it also needs us. Scientists know all about science but they seem to get stumped at the sort of arguments that fundies come out with. Atheists have heard all them arguments before and they know where the illogic lies.
I absolutely Love and admire Carl Sagan and his work, there were a few parts to that interview, not sure if you can find them on youtube...I remember watching his program when I was growing up and questioning religion and it felt like he was talking to me....what a guy! Billions upon Billions LOLOL
you got a point there arequipa, science should not say it has other things to do... I agree with what you're saying
Just to make myself clear, I am an Atheist. However, as Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I don't think any religion holds water. But disproving the existence of a god? There might be one hiding in the Triangulum Galaxy (M33). Certainly not one worthy of worship.
The more dogmatic a religion is, the worse it is. I don't have much of a problem with Deists; that belief is essentially harmless. I prefer catma to dogma.
Just to make myself clear, I am an Atheist. However, as Mark Twain said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I don't think any religion holds water. But disproving the existence of a god? There might be one hiding in the Triangulum Galaxy (M33). Certainly not one worthy of worship.
The more dogmatic a religion is, the worse it is. I don't have much of a problem with Deists; that belief is essentially harmless. I prefer catma to dogma.
You are quite right. In fact I was just now looking at definitions for atheist and humanist in connection with a thread on what's the difference. The explanation I read was ok, but then went on to point out that the 'strong' postion was illogical -which it appears to be if taken too literally. In fact, the strong atheist can only be as sure there are no gods in the same way you and I can be sure there are no fire-breathing dragons. Chop-logically, we cannot know that, but to say there may be fire - breathing dragons on that basis is even more illogical.
As you rightly say, there may be a god somewhere in the universe but, if it isn't here, who cares?
I see no reason to be a believer, and wasn't raised with it so that my plastic little kiddie brain absorbed a template of a god.
I will stand by this even in a foxhole.
Personally, I am not comfortable with labels such as theist/atheist. However, I don't worship any "Gods" (so that would make me atheist by definition). My reason for not worshiping "Gods" is because I have free will. Whether God is real or not, worshiping his/her every wish would mean that I am living by someone else's free will (not my own). What would be the purpose of me being "here" if I am supposed to live by the wishes of someone else? I do believe that we are here to do as we wish; just as long as our wishes do not harm (or exploit) the free will of others. This principle is my "God"; not some invisible sky dude.
I was raised in a Catholic household and always had trouble grapsing the religion, I thought it was a joke even in elementary school, I thought it was along the same lines as Santa and the Easter Bunny, and I grew up to find this coulnd't be any more truthful.
I don't concern myself with religion, it's not worth my time. I would rather focus my energy on TODAY rather than worry about the future.
I believe in SCIENCE and FACT!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
