If we had unlimited time, we could objectively test everything, but that is impossible, so we must rely on the word of others. Even those that think that truth can be revealed and confirmed by internal emotional responses (the burning bosom) have to rely on the "authority" of others, because you can't pray about EVERYTHING. IMHO, this is where atheists are clearly superior to those who cling to religion/superstition. For my "authority" I look to groups like the National Academy of Sciences, who's members are the greatest minds of our time, and overwhelmingly atheist. The body of knowledge/objective truth developed by Science in just the past few hundred years makes a joke of the paltry and absurd "truths" that the various religions still try to pawn off onto the simple and gullible.

Here is my challenge to those who cling to religion/superstition. If you had to live in a world WITHOUT the truths and resulting technology brought by your religion, or a world WITHOUT the truths and resulting technology brought by the scientific method, which would you choose?

If you could actually have the supposed "truths" of religion be true, I would choose religion. I mean if all the miracles they claim actually worked, and you could go to heaven afterward, I'd choose that over scientific technology. Of course that's a fantasy world where religious claims are actually true.

I sure as hell wouldn't go to a medical doctor when I'm sick if someone could pray and magically heal me.

Depends how much wine he'd make...

I don't think Jesus would mind computers. If He truy is who he claims, he must've known all the misteries of technology, space and beyond, as it's said he created it.
Evolution doesn't seem to interfere with that.
To truly be able to learn everything eventually will be so awesome.

I think you missed the point, Nina...
The question is, if you had to choose between science and religion, which would you choose?
By the way, how do you know we will learn everything eventually?

Hi Love :)
I tried to answer w/o having to make a choice between the two. IMO, Science and belief in Jesus is not incompatible at all. And I said (based on the belief of Jesus as God, he said we will know all things one day)
I hope I explained your question?... I hope :)

Nina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think Jesus would mind computers. If He
> truy is who he claims, he must've known all the
> misteries of technology, space and beyond, as it's
> said he created it.
> Evolution doesn't seem to interfere with that.
>
Darling, that's only because you don't understand evolution.

Not on IF what they believed was true. In other words... if you had to choose between two worlds, would you live in the world with all the things brought to you by science, or this world WITHOUT science, with only the 'truths' and 'technology' that religion has brought to the world?

OK then, that's a no-brainer, since religion is just superstitious nonsense. Which I guess was really your point in the first place.

I'd give up a lot for that.

Or should I start my own thread about it?

AquaMan is the only true SuperHero on the face of the earth.

If Aquaman is our only super hero.

Aquaman is useless..... http://vimeo.com/5541344

My ulterior motive for the post was to examine the two groups that seem to be represented here...
1.exmo atheists
2. exmo believers

Since there is no evidence to support Christianity any more than there is to support Mormonism, I'm interested when exmos reject one and not the other.

I'm neither - I think religion is a human invention, but I haven't entirely discounted the possibility that there may be some form of "god", higher power, or whatever. And yes, I know, the burden of proof is on the believer and I don't have proof, I get it, but I still don't quite consider myself an atheist.

No - that would mean trusting their authority. I don't change my beliefs because someone else said so. Although if I read what they wrote and agreed with their logic, that would impact my beliefs.

Science is not dependent on Authority. And while they are authorities in their fields,I believe them (the scientists) because their proofs are based on evidence, not authority.

That's what I meant - I'm not going to change my beliefs because the people who are considered to be the greatest intellects of our age, are also atheist. I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority, or something like that. I wouldn't believe them simply based on the fact that they are authorities in their fields - I would have to actually look at why they are atheist, the logic of their proofs, and actually see the evidence myself. I think the debate over the existence of God is more philosophical than directly evidence-based, and I haven't really studied logic or philosophy that much, so I'm just trying to do the best I can with what I've got.

I'm just noting that across nationalities, ethnicities, and religious upbringings (upsbringing?), the more one is educated, the more one knows about the universe in which we live, the more likely it is that they are atheist. From a believer's perspective, what could the reason for this be? God tricks the smart ones?

I'd say that's because more educated people are more likely to see through the BS of religion and recognize that the religious leaders just want money and power. People who don't believe in religion are less likely to believe in God - but that still doesn't really convince me that there can't be a God.

Rejection of one religion doesn't mean that all are false. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea of a soul, and life beyond what we can sense in the physical world. Why choose such a limited view and pretend to know that God doesn't exist? How is that any better than claiming to know that He does?

You can show me "plenty of evidence" to support the "FACT" of the soul and life after death, the you can take this evidence and collect $1,000,000.00 from the James Randi Foundation. I'm waiting...

If you will look again I didn't use "fact" but "idea". And all of the things we discuss really are only ideas, either manifested in reality or not. You can no more prove the existence of the chair you are sitting on than the existence or non-existence of God. According to science, everything around us is made of tiny structures called atoms, which are constantly in motion, and themselves only reflections or manifestations of energy. So really, if you believe in science, you have to admit the truth of what I just said. Yet whether you believe it or not, you can neither prove nor disprove it. You have to believe that those who posited these ideas, which are accepted as more than theories, are either true or not.
Try reading The Holographic Universe. Fact or fiction? Read eyewitness accounts of people who have died and come back, then related exactly what others said and did while they were dead, even if those people were in another part of the hospital at the time, and who acknowledged that they were correct? Fact or fiction?

How is your narrow-mindedness serving you?

And I'm the one who doesn't understand science, sonoma?
Beatnik - do you know the difference between a scientific theory, a hypothesis, and a fact? Look it up in any high school science book.

beatnik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you will look again I didn't use "fact" but
> "idea". And all of the things we discuss really
> are only ideas, either manifested in reality or
> not. You can no more prove the existence of the
> chair you are sitting on than the existence or
> non-existence of God.

Says it all... I now understand how AND why you believe in god. Now go off and play while the adults continue the conversation...

According to science,
> everything around us is made of tiny structures
> called atoms, which are constantly in motion, and
> themselves only reflections or manifestations of
> energy. So really, if you believe in science, you
> have to admit the truth of what I just said.

Yet whether you believe it or not, you can neither
> prove nor disprove it. You have to believe that
> those who posited these ideas, which are accepted
> as more than theories, are either true or not.
> Try reading The Holographic Universe. Fact or
> fiction? Read eyewitness accounts of people who
> have died and come back, then related exactly what
> others said and did while they were dead, even if
> those people were in another part of the hospital
> at the time, and who acknowledged that they were
> correct? Fact or fiction?
>
> How is your narrow-mindedness serving you?

Perhaps someday you will be humbled a bit and then possibly open to a wider world-view, but for now your arrogance likely will remain a stumbling block to learning. I sincerely hope for the best for you and indeed all of us passing through this life.

"There is plenty of evidence to support the idea of a soul, and life beyond what we can sense in the physical world."

As asked?

Here is something you may want to consider, it may help you engage in a debate in such a way that you can actually convince someone of your point of view:

http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg

I would like to look into it more, if you can give me some references to intellectual atheist writings - preferably online (yes, I'm that lazy).

Well, here is a partial list of Atheist scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28science_and_technology%29

Here are some philosophers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28philosophy%29

Lots of reading there. Knock yourself out.

If you are looking for scientists that advocate atheism, I would think this is a list of people that would be considered great intellectuals that you could read up on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_%28activists_and_educators%29

For the most part, this is discussing finding objective truths, but it often can be applied to some of my subjective truths. But then again, why would I need to believe anyone other than myself as to what my subjective truths are?

When I tried prayer or the "burning bosom" thing, I really wanted them to work, but they did not. They did not reliably produce accurate results.

I was taught to use logic and reasoning to get the most accurate results. Over time, I have found that using logic and reasoning works the best at getting accurate results. The better I apply logic and reasoning, and excluded emotions, superstitions and the burning bosom thing, the better results I get.

So, when I start to who to believe, I start looking for input from those that use the tools that I think get the best most accurate results. This leads me to science and away from religion every time.

I mean, they really feel something. Of course the source of those feelings is the person's own brain, and they're simply looking for confirmation of their beliefs.