I find it hard to believe that you've never thought you heard/saw/felt/tasted/smelled something that was not there. Its such a common experience that its become trite in literature, movies, t.v. The number of experiences where the senses fail is so severe that its accepted as commonplace. Your seem to be claiming you don't get spooked.

As for the divine intervention, now this is speculative and I know you probably hate that : Isn't it possible that the world works fine without help because its already been helped? Isn't it conceivable that invisible helpings go on all the time. Take for instance the extraordinary factor of people. They are highly unpredictable...isn't it possible that a Higher Power affects the lives of those unpredictable people and puts things in motion? A man holds a gun to his head and before he pulls the trigger something stops him from doing it. Say that man was important enough to affect the world, and he goes on to do great things. Say that something that stopped him was God, is it now just possible that God instigated something that set the world on a whole new course just by that simple unseen action?

I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm asking you to validate the possibility. I'm asking you to take responsibility for the things you say and realize that your calling people ignorant in so many words. Its not stupid to believe in God.

From your words I gather that Science is a continually growing body of knowledge that isn't 100% accurate and it relies on proof. So through proof (acquired by testing) one can come up with an inaccurate but alarmingly close representation of the world. We can also calculate just how close that representation is!

By the way I think thats exactly my understanding of science, not 100% accurate ideas that could be proven wrong in the blink of an eye.

But now I want to know just how much we have left to calculate before we understand everything? I just want an accurate calculation of how much more we need to know before we can rid the world of ideas as silly as 'God'.

Sure it is, because your openly relying on something that could be wrong. To my own consciousness God isn't false. To other peoples consciousness God could be wrong. So when you average it out God could be wrong however the main difference between our two leaps of faith is that I don't have any doubt of mine.

While it is entirely possible that they read the bible and thought that, I don't believe it. Are you saying that you read the bible and interpreted better than the countless millions that came before you? Are you assuming that the Bible should read like a Ann Rand novel, completely up to date and capable of spilling its secrets at your feet?

Someone sees God or a burning bush then they turn around and write it down, another person sees or hears something else pertaining to 'God' they equally write it down. Soon the mass phenomenon of 'seeing God' turns into a book, a compiled scientific journal depicting experiences with God and experiments to understand that phenomenon. How is that different from the scientific process?

And yeah, I agree ad hominem. I asked the question because I want to take a poll of atheists and figure out what made them believe that God isn't real, it was a statement not an argument. I theorize that the anti-god movement is the way they are because God didn't do something magical for them.


So I gather your concern is that you don't want people telling you to believe in God. And I'm saying its all how you word it. Your saying 'I don't believe in God and I'm tired of people telling me TO believe in God' at the same time as 'I believe in something logical with credentials whereas God-believers believe in something based on a book with no credentials'. Well lets not mince words here, your calling Believers stupid and saying you don't want to be attacked for doing so.


Your words. I don't assume something that could be false, thats you. Remember 'Science isn't 100% accurate' that translates roughly to 'science could be wrong'.

I'm sorry where was that verse again? The one where God says don't question me? I'm pretty sure your thinking of the Church...the church and the God are two separate entities.

The fact that probability isn't 100% and NEVER will be makes it a leap of faith. Meanwhile, a higher power has existed the world over with many of our old religions springing up without any influence from anyone else. We didn't call each other and go 'hey try this test out just like I did it and tell me if its the same for you' we got answers and when we got together to compare notes they were all the same.

You will NEVER see me defend the Church, it did corrupt things that discredit christianity into the dark ages, a hole we'll never recover from because its easy to blame God for things Man did. The same way that .0001% doesn't seem like a leap of faith to you is the same as a Christian believing in God. We don't even consider the slim chance.

If your interested in other peoples happiness why call them stupid? Why say they need to 'sugar-coat' life? Or that they 'aren't strong enough to believe in themselves'? That comes off as a punch in the gut and believe me its much worse than someone saying 'acknowledge the possibility'. The worst part is that your smart enough to know what your saying has negative implications. So you know your doing it.

Isn't trusting whole-heartedly in God just as foolish? One day, I may be in my room an think that I hear someone calling my name, or I may have been mistaken. Then again, Joan of Arc may have actually heard God talking to her, or she may have been mistaken. God may be jumping in front of me, but I haven't yet made the mistake in seeing him.

Quote:

I only ever want to ask atheists and agnostics one question. What happened in your life that made you think God is wrong? I always feel like Atheist must feel that God cheated them out of something. A lost loved one, a criminal act, a vile injustice and so God is blamed. Then do the scorned join together in hatred? I was raised to believe in a Christian God and so I continue believing. I've questioned whether he exists or not but I simply have no reason to believe otherwise. That simple. I see a benefit in believing in God and no benefit by not believing in God.

I feel that there are really only a couple of reasons why people believe in God. A vast majority of people, like you, were raised to believe in God. Other people chose to believe later in life for some reason of their own.

I'd say that I've lived a happy life with out believing in God. I do not believe in God simpily for the reason that I was not raised to believe in God and I was not given a reason to do so. And similarly, I believe in science because that is was I was taught is right in school. The only thing that I really have for myself are my five senses, no matter how imperfect they are. And with these five senses, I have not experienced anything that I would consider an 'act of God', but I have experienced many 'acts of science'.

Quote:

Now I'll agree with you that a belief in the baptist or catholic God is an affront to rational minds but there is a wide percentage of denominations that aren't so sidetracked that they can't assume that God USES the principles of science to his advantage. So a scientific Christian can exist without hindering anything.

I'd have to agree with Angelus here about Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation or answer is usually the most accurate one.

Quote:

So in closing, a belief in our senses is the equivalent of the same leap of faith Christians have for God, a belief in science is the equivalent of a leap of faith, there is no disadvantage to believing in God and really Atheists...what crawled up there?.

For you, there are no disadvantages to believing in God, but for me there are no disadvantages in NOT believing in God.