My spirit is troubled..

[Talon]

How's about we all just agree that we can't possibly know one way or the other and stop trying to beat our brand of not-knowing into the skulls of people who ascribe to a different brand of not-knowing?

^-.-^

How about, no.

Why? Because it's factually incorrect.

Example. The Theory of Gravity is demonstrably correct in most areas. But it completely breaks down at the atomic level. But we can show where the theory works, and where it doesn't. We can show where the boundaries of knowledge and ignorance lie. Can the same be said of the Theory of God?

No it can't. Maybe tomorrow someone will demonstrate a theory of a higher-power. Then I'll start believing. But until that happens, I have no more reason to believe in a god or gods than I do in unicorns, reincarnation, aliens, telepathy, or trickle-down economic theory.

If you can't show it, you don't know it. It really is that simple.

I am not an atheist by any means...

And yet you keep arguing like one. Earning both my approval and my amusement

[Andara Bledin]

And yet you keep arguing like one. Earning both my approval and my amusement

He's an atheist, not an Atheist. In other words, Atheism isn't his religion, but his religion is atheist.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

And... here we go, with someone asserting that a lack of proof is a proof of lack.

I'm really trying to wrap my head around this statement and why you think its eye roll worthy. Do we need another 5 page lecture on how logic and the scientific method work?

Also, I don't recall asserting a proof of lack. In fact I believe I left the door open in my last post.

How's about we all just agree that we can't possibly know one way or the other and stop trying to beat our brand of not-knowing into the skulls of people who ascribe to a different brand of not-knowing?

A) Perhaps you should be telling that to Panacea.
B) Windmills do not work that way.

And yet you keep arguing like one. Earning both my approval and my amusement

I'm not an atheist, I'm just being realistic. -.-

The traditional Christian idea of "God" simply isn't compadible with modern science. A more broad, open minded concept of a higher god like intelligence is compadible with modern science but only if its taking a hands off, clockwork universe approach to everything. A caretaker type intelligence is still theorhetically impossible. An old dude with a white beard that's obsessed with interfering constantly lest we stick our genitals in the wrong place, not so much.

"God" could not intervene in the physical universe without creating a butterfly effect unless "God" was acting on a quantum level. But if "God" acts on a quantum level then the nature of reality itself is changed by its intervention. Thus we would never percieve any intervention because reality itself would change when it intervened.

But at that point you're claiming an invisible all knowing intelligence is altering reality to make it look like they're not doing anything by ensuring the stuff they do is within the laws and causality of the universe. Meaning it would happen anyway within the current ruleset of the sandbox without their intervention in the first place. Rendering it moot.

At that point, you're pissing day dreams onto the edge of Occam's Razor.

He's an atheist, not an Atheist. In other words, Atheism isn't his religion, but his religion is atheist.

I'm not an atheist. Considering how many times we've had this bloody discussion, you should know that by now. Even just reading this thread you should know that by now.

[Seifer]

He's an atheist, not an Atheist. In other words, Atheism isn't his religion, but his religion is atheist.

^-.-^

How is atheism a religion? I'm confused.

Definition of RELIGION (via Merriam-Webster online)

1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

How do any of those definitions fit people who don't aspire to any one belief? (Remember, the rejection of a religious claim is not a belief. "Believing there is no God" is a belief. There's a difference.)

[Mytical]

A lot off topic, but isn't it agnostics who don't belong to any particular faith, and atheist who believe there is no god?

If so then therefore atheist can be seen as fitting no. 4 of your definition. Holding to something with ardor. *shrugs*

[Gravekeeper]

A lot off topic, but isn't it agnostics who don't belong to any particular faith, and atheist who believe there is no god?

If so then therefore atheist can be seen as fitting no. 4 of your definition. Holding to something with ardor. *shrugs*

Don't dude, just don't. Nothing pisses off an atheist more than trying to tell them atheism is a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion. That's the entire point of atheism. It is a rejection of unprovable claims. The absence of belief is not itself a belief. It's like saying the absence of light is just a really dark kind of light. Its silly and makes no sense.

An agnostic is the neutral position. An agnostic neither believes nor rejects. An agnostic does not believe in a higher being, but likewise does not believe we can rule out the possibility. Basically, it's "I don't know, but neither do you." An agnostic can lean towards atheism ( I don't know, but I don't think so ) or theism ( I don't know, but I think so ) or sit firmly in the middle ( I don't know, but since there's no evidence and it doesn't effect us, I'm not going to worry about it ).

Heck, many modern Christians are basically spiritual agnostics, with a theist leaning. They focus on the positive aspects of the teachings, and reject the negative ones.

I. on the other hand, am a pandeist when it comes to the universe, divinity and creation. When it comes to the mundane grubby matters of humans, I mainly use Buddhist philosophy as a morale and ethical guide.

[Andara Bledin]

A couple of things:

Agnosticism is technically a form of atheism; because agnostics have made no choice they are by default without a god, and thus atheistic in the full sense of the term while often not actually self-identifying as Atheist as most people understand it.

A person can be religious and atheistic at the same time, which is refered to as positive atheism and includes all spiritual paths that do not include any type of deity, such as Buddhism.

Some people try to dismiss all definitions outside that of the rejection of all religions. And some who actively don't believe in any deity object to the classification. Both sides are being unnecessarily restrictive and, honestly, being rather prejudicial in their usage.

Until we get past this knee-jerk "You can't be one of us" and "I'm not one of them" reaction, we will continue to have difficulty engaging in meaningful dialogue.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

A lot off topic, but isn't it agnostics who don't belong to any particular faith, and atheist who believe there is no god?

If so then therefore atheist can be seen as fitting no. 4 of your definition. Holding to something with ardor. *shrugs*

There's a distinct problem with trying to fit agnosticism and atheism into the religious framework - a problem different than what Gravekeeper's talking about.

The problem is that there are a couple of different ways that "atheist" and "agnostic" can be used. There's the lay definitions ("atheist" = doesn't believe in any gods; agnostic = believes in the possibility of gods, but doesn't believe in any particular god(s) or religions) , and then there's what I tend to call the pedantic definitions, where everyone is grouped into four categories: atheist agnostic, atheist gnostic, theist agnostic, and theist gnostic. I was going to write out definitions for each of the four, but it's such a pain in the ass, I'm not sure it's really worth it.

And the problem arises when people using the lay definitions runs into someone using the pedantic definitions, and fur starts flying because a pedant gets offended at being inadvertently called something that they believe they're not.

SUCH a pain.

[HYHYBT]

I don't think you understand my point anymore than Panacea, and are just arguing semantics.

We've been over this on these forums a hundred times. So lets just hit the highlights of the typical thread on this subject and be done with it:

You make a claim, you require proof. The alleged absence of evidence to the contrary is not proof, logic does not work that way. There is no proof of God. There is no empirical difference between a world with or without "God". Save perhaps without would historically have a lower body count.

There, I think that about covers it. -.-

I do not accept your claim of the right to set what arguments I may make, including making none at all. I am *not* here making a claim of anything, and therefore it doesn't even make sense to demand proof; but even other than that, as I believe you yourself have pointed out in other threads, there are frames of discussion other than the scientific one (which is the only one in which that demand would apply). What proof do *you* have that the scientific frame is the appropriate one for a discussion of God? Why not a philosophical one instead?

(Please do the justice of a better answer to that last question than anything that boils down to "but the scientific one gives me the advantage because I can act the same as making a claim that something is not when that is advantageous, while not having to defend any such thing because it's a negative claim instead of a positive and therefore I can word it as if I'm not making one." Or anything that contains any part of that. It's legalized cheating, and it gets old.)

On the other hand, no. Skip all that. Because that's not the conversation we were having in the first place. Your post which I am responding to is a non-sequiter. The question at hand was "does it matter whether God exists or not." To demand proof that God exists when *whether* God exists or not is not the question at hand is absurd.

[Seifer]

A lot off topic, but isn't it agnostics who don't belong to any particular faith, and atheist who believe there is no god?

If so then therefore atheist can be seen as fitting no. 4 of your definition. Holding to something with ardor. *shrugs*

It actually starts to get very confusing. Here's how it breaks down:

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known."

There are atheists out there who will outright say, "There is no God", but that's not the correct approach. If they make that claim, it is now on them to prove it. No one can prove or disprove a god at this point. Agnostic atheists, on the other hand, do not claim that there is or is not a god. Their only claim is that there isn't enough information out there to come to a rational conclusion.

[Gravekeeper]

What proof do *you* have that the scientific frame is the appropriate one for a discussion of God? Why not a philosophical one instead?

Do you even know why I was saying what I was and what it was in response too? Because it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you're having an argument I'm not even aware I'm a part of.

A scientific frame is appropriate for the discussion of God as long as someone is making a scientifically measurable claim of God's nature and abilities. A philosophical discussion is perfectly appropriate until it crosses that line. Panacea jumped in and crossed that line. The thread spiraled into its usual atheist vs theist with people assuming that because I don't rub the Bible against myself in the lonely hours of the evening that I must somehow be an atheist. Because apparently the only allowing options are Christian and Atheist.

It's legalized cheating, and it gets old.

Are you seriously whining that logic isn't fair?

On the other hand, no. Skip all that. Because that's not the conversation we were having in the first place.

Neither of us even know the conversation we're supposedly having. You clearly don't, and I don't have any farking idea either.

The question at hand was "does it matter whether God exists or not." To demand proof that God exists when *whether* God exists or not is not the question at hand is absurd.

The topic at hand was that there was no measurable difference between a world with and without "God". You're the one that tried to introduce a philosophical angle to it. Now you're ranting at me because I didn't go along with you trying to reframe the discussion along the lines you perfer when I was already speaking scientifically before you entered the conversation?

You not being able to change the topic is not my fault.

Why do I even click on this forum anymore? Everyone seems to just block out everything we talked about the last time we had This Thread Again(tm).

I'm sorry, Mytical. This has been completely derailed.

[Mytical]

It actually starts to get very confusing. Here's how it breaks down:

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known."

There are atheists out there who will outright say, "There is no God", but that's not the correct approach. If they make that claim, it is now on them to prove it. No one can prove or disprove a god at this point. Agnostic atheists, on the other hand, do not claim that there is or is not a god. Their only claim is that there isn't enough information out there to come to a rational conclusion.

Ow my head hurts. Why do things always have to get so complicated? Anyhow, by this definition I would place myself as an Agnostic Atheist. Right now, I do not have enough information to come to a rational conclusion. I believe something is out there but have no clue what. I also firmly believe that the moment you say something is impossible you are correct, because you then stop trying. But that is another discussion altogether.

[Panacea]

I'm not splitting hairs. "I don't accept the belief/claim of a God" is NOT the same thing as "I don't believe in God." One is open for further discovery, the other is closed. I don't accept the claim of a God because there is no evidence or proof of God. There's been tons of speculation and jumping to conclusions, but nothing definitive. Until there is, I remain neutral.

The very definition of agnosticism.

I will, however, continue to have discussions with people who claim a God exists, because when a person makes a claim, it is up to that person to then prove their claim. So far, no one has been able to prove their religious claims to me.

I'm not trying to prove that God exists to you. I'm trying to explain why I believe what I believe.

It's unfortunate that there are people who insist on a very narrow world view; a black and white view where science is the only answer to everything. But science cannot answer every question.

You can't quantify many things. You can't quantify love. You can't quantify beauty. Yet no one would dispute that these things exist.

Many people believe in a higher Power. They believe varying things about this power. Relating to this power is a powerful experience, and one that is difficult to describe, much less prove.

We can't quantify God. What we can quantify are the effects of people who believe in a higher Power (I'm speaking broadly to include all spiritual or religious paths, not just Christianity).

The effects of religious faith have been well studied in my profession of nursing. We know, through science, that people with a strong religious faith do better in coping with illnesses. They cope with pain better. They respond to treatments better. This isn't the placebo effect; these people are getting actual medical care, standard medical care that they respond to better than those who are non-religious (by that I don't mean just atheists, but also those who may profess a belief in God, but don't act on it).

12 step programs for substance abuse rely on surrendering to a higher power (that's the specific term used). They work.

I'm not saying these examples proves the existence of a higher Power. What they do prove, however, are the benefits of faith.

The atheists have been relying on literal, fundamentalist interpretations of a single religion--Christianity-- to prove their views. Other religious faiths have generally been ignored. So the underlying assumption is, because the Bible has some passages that can be interpreted in a negative light (passages that are not history and were never meant to be interpreted that way), that there is nothing good about religion at all.

This discussion really isn't about whether a higher Power exists or not. It's about antipathy to Christianity. And that antipathy is perfectly understandable, because there are a LOT of "Christians" who don't behave in a very Christian way.

I really don't object to people who dismiss the existence of a higher Power. What I object to is dismissing an experience that gives joy to a great many people simply because it is not empirical, and because certain people are turned off by the action of some members of a single religious faith.

As to your first example, you'll notice that the people in the wrong jumped to conclusions. They had no proof that those things caused disease. However, they went with it. They were in the wrong, because they weren't using the scientific process. Someone finally came along who actually started doing research, and eventually discovered germs.

Seifer, you don't know what you are talking about. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis did very good science. He didn't jump to any conclusions. He observed (as good scientists do) that post partum women on the medical side of the hospital had a much higher rate of puerpural fever (childbed fever) and mortality than post partum women cared for in the ward run by midwives (who were not nurses back then; nursing was in its infantcy). He wanted to know why, so he looked for what was different between the two wards. The midwives ward was clean, lots of fresh and and sunshine, clean sheets. The midwives believed "cleanliness is next to Godliness."

The medical ward was dirty, no fresh air, sheets not changed regularly, etc. But he also noticed something else; the post partum women regularly got pelvic exams from medical students in dirty lab coats (back then, the dirtier your lab coat the more skill you were assumed to have) coming directly from the morgue. These students would go from doing dissection (bare hands, no gloves then) to poking fingers in women who'd just had babies.

So he decided to experiment by forcing med students to wash their hands before entering the women's ward. It wasn't a popular change, but the mortality rates went substantially down. When he published his findings he should have been lauded a hero for saving lives, but instead it ruined him. Doctors didn't want to change.

You don’t need a god to learn, grow, gain wisdom, and live in harmony with one another. Quite frankly, people have used religion to do the exact opposite of those things. (I recognize that you agree that religion can be used for both good and bad, I just didn’t want to quote what you said at the end of your post.)

That's something where we'll have to agree to disagree. Because I doubt we would have learned to do those things without religion. Religion generally (though not always) has urged man to behave in ways that enhance social bonds: respect for life, respect for property, a need for justice, caring for the poor.

Murder is murder, I don’t care what context it’s in. God telling his people to smash their enemies’ babies against rocks is horrific, and shows the mindset of the people back then. They only cared about murder in their own tribe, not when it came to their enemies. So to them, so did God.

Again, you're taking the Bible literally. The problem with doing that is you can miss things like propaganda. The early Hebrews needed to justify their actions in imposing social order after they fled Egypt, and conquered Caanan. I'm not condoning that, but those actions run counter to the actual messages of the faith, and other parts of the Bible talk about scribes who write down things in religious texts to suit their own needs.

Jesus hasn’t been proven to have existed, let alone been the son of a god. I can’t take that example seriously.

Actually, the Jewish historian Josephus (who lived around the same time) mentions him.

How is atheism a religion? I'm confused.

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

This definition best fits. The actions of many atheists to ridicule and disrupt the religious practices of others conforms to this definition. Destroying religion becomes their religion.

Its actually rather ironic that Panacea is the one accusing you of being close minded, when it is the total opposite. Except Panacea has closed their mind to science.

"Her mind." I don't have multiple personality disorder

I find it astonishing that you would claim I've closed my mind to science, given that I am in a scientific profession (nursing is a science), use the scientific method every day in my professional practice, teach research at the graduate level, and freely admit the existence of God cannot be proven by the scientific method. Please don't confuse me with the Young Creationist nuts; I don't believe Adam and Eve romped with dinosaurs, I don't believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and I understand that the Bible is not a science text.

It's a fallacy to presume that science and faith cannot co-exist. Many famous scientists were people of profound faith: Issac Newton, Galileo, Descartes, among many others as a historical example. While Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god (he was born into the Jewish faith), he denied atheism. In a modern context there is Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian.

It's fine if faith does not work for you. But you should not say anyone is closed to science for believing, unless they actually reject the findings of science. Climate deniers and Young Creationists/intelligent design people fall into that category.

I and the other people I mentioned do not.

Christianity is a proleytizing religion. Its foundation is preaching and conversion. In fact, it's a central feature of the two major Abrahamic religions. Which is why they have spread. With the exception of Judaism. Which you'll note has not spread. Every other religion either does not attempt to convert ( or sees the act as outright offensive and appalling in the case of many Eastern religions ) or hasn't tried to convert anyone in a couple thousand years. Hence that have stayed largely in their countries of origin.

Even Islam isn't as big on proselytizing as Christianity. The Quran does not permit force to be used to convert anyone. The Bible, not so much.

GK, you've just shown an incomplete misunderstanding of the spread of Islam. First of all, Islam spread very rapidly in its early years, spreading to many parts of Africa, well into Spain, invaded France (and was beaten back in the famous battle of Poitiers by the Frankish king Charles Martel), conquered most of India and central Asia, and even made its way into China and Indonesia very early in its history. Currently, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, with Christianity holding a strong second. It is very much a proselytizing religion, and has always actively sought converts (including the sending of missionaries). However, I do agree that conversion by the sword was rare (though it did happen).

Buddhism held a similar rapid expansion from India into China and the Far East. It actually ran into opposition from rulers in China and Korea, who were Confucian, because its precepts seemed to discourage the leader follower relationship philosophies of Confucianism. Various forms of Buddhism continue to attract new followers world wide, and many people of a wide variety of faiths hold the Dali Lama in great reverence and respect (I know I do). It may not seek converts in the traditional way we think of proselytizing, but it remains a vital and vibrant religious path.

[Seifer]

The effects of religious faith have been well studied in my profession of nursing. We know, through science, that people with a strong religious faith do better in coping with illnesses. They cope with pain better. They respond to treatments better. This isn't the placebo effect;

I'd wager that it is. As I've said before, people who truly believe in prayer and that their god loves and cares for them tend to have an easier time with things like illness and death. When people think that there's a higher power who is there to protect them and answer their cries, they aren't as scared of the world. It doesn't matter if their prayers are actually doing anything - the fact that they make them is enough.

12 step programs for substance abuse rely on surrendering to a higher power (that's the specific term used). They work.

12 step programs work as well as quitting cold turkey. Here is some information about it.

I find 12 step programs incredibly offensive for two reasons. One, the fact that they flat out tell people that they are weak and worthless without some "higher power." That's not something you tell an addict. Give an addict confidence in themselves, and help them realize that they are strong enough to kick their habit. Pushing a higher power on them is NOT going to help - it's simply a way to force religion on people who already have addictive and dependent qualities. Easy fodder for religion.

Two, when 12 step programs have to give their results (i.e. "The same as not using a 12 step program"), their excuse is that it must be the addicts fault. "They didn't try hard enough!" 12 steps don't want to admit that they're useless, and only exist to bring people to "a higher power."

The atheists have been relying on literal, fundamentalist interpretations of a single religion--Christianity-- to prove their views. Other religious faiths have generally been ignored.

Nope. Atheists don't agree with any religious claims. The reason they focus on Christianity, though, is because Christianity is so prevalent in the U.S. The group that's screaming the loudest is going to garner more attention, that's just how it works.

Seifer, you don't know what you are talking about. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis did very good science. He didn't jump to any conclusions.

I didn't say he did. I said he was the one who did things correctly by NOT jumping to conclusions.

That's something where we'll have to agree to disagree. Because I doubt we would have learned to do those things without religion. Religion generally (though not always) has urged man to behave in ways that enhance social bonds: respect for life, respect for property, a need for justice, caring for the poor.

You're right, I completely disagree.

This definition best fits. The actions of many atheists to ridicule and disrupt the religious practices of others conforms to this definition. Destroying religion becomes their religion.

As I said earlier, the atheists who come out and say, "God doesn't exist" are in the wrong, because they are now making an unprovable claim. If I am not making any claims, how am I "holding a belief"? How is "reason" a religious entity?

[Gravekeeper]

This isn't the placebo effect; these people are getting actual medical care, standard medical care that they respond to better than those who are non-religious (by that I don't mean just atheists, but also those who may profess a belief in God, but don't act on it).

It is a placebo effect. It's the very definition of a placebo effect. They are in a better mental state because, as Seifer was saying, they believe they have someone or something "in their corner" so to speak. It, and 12 step programs, are psychology, not proof of divinity. Though it does run the risk of being a double edged sword if they *don't* get better. Then they may shift the blame onto that someone or something or themselves believing they were not worthy or did something wrong.

The atheists have been relying on literal, fundamentalist interpretations of a single religion--Christianity-- to prove their views. Other religious faiths have generally been ignored.

Other religious faiths outside of the Abrahamic are very unlikely to be shoving a pamphlet in your hand or yelling at you on TV for being gay. Christianity gets the most heat because its the largest, most vocal and in the US, most deterimental. Because the US has a small but powerful minority of "Christians" hellbent on turning the country into a theocracy. In quotations because I'm pretty sure that isn't what Jesus Would Do(tm). -.-

So the underlying assumption is, because the Bible has some passages that can be interpreted in a negative light (passages that are not history and were never meant to be interpreted that way), that there is nothing good about religion at all.

That is an incredibly narrow viewpoint and shows a lack of understanding of atheism outside of a couple vocal militants. You're speaking of them in the same narrow view that militant atheists speak of you.

This discussion really isn't about whether a higher Power exists or not. It's about antipathy to Christianity. And that antipathy is perfectly understandable, because there are a LOT of "Christians" who don't behave in a very Christian way.

Agreed. As I was saying, there's a very visible and very vocal chunk of "Christians" in the US who are actively trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else. It's creating a backlash thats growing in volume the more ridiculous the bullshit gets. Especially lately with said "Christians" acting like they're somehow being victimized by not being allowed to shove their beliefs on everyone else.

The US is somewhat of a microcosm though in this respect. There's no major religious movements in Canada or Europe that come close to whats going on in the US. In Canada, its deemed offensive to push your religion onto anyone else, regardless of what your religion is. Especially when it comes to politics. Your ass will get voted out of office so fast it will make your head spin if you try to preach in politics up here >.>

I really don't object to people who dismiss the existence of a higher Power. What I object to is dismissing an experience that gives joy to a great many people simply because it is not empirical, and because certain people are turned off by the action of some members of a single religious faith.

I have no objection to someone being happy in part thanks to their beliefs. Whatever floats your boat, great. No religion is right or wrong. They're all just different perspectives attempting to explain what's going on. What I object to is a religious belief as a statement of fact. If someone tells me they believe in God, that's fine.

It's when, for example, someone tells me that God is this or that or did this or that in reference to a measurable event that already had an explaination. Then tries to use a 2000 year old novel as factual proof of it. -.-

That's something where we'll have to agree to disagree. Because I doubt we would have learned to do those things without religion. Religion generally (though not always) has urged man to behave in ways that enhance social bonds: respect for life, respect for property, a need for justice, caring for the poor.

Religion has long been a form of social engineering. Both for good and bad. Back in the days before cops, it really helped to have social controls that relied on an all seeing, all knowing invisible force. -.-

The modern problem with religion is almost exclusively due to some people not evolving the social considerations of religion to modern times. Religion *must* evolve with humanity, not try to drag it backwards. Otherwise the conflict will continue as technology progresses forward.

This definition best fits. The actions of many atheists to ridicule and disrupt the religious practices of others conforms to this definition. Destroying religion becomes their religion.

I think you've met precious few atheists considering the way you keep describing them. Nevermind the fact that any ridicule or alleged disruption pulled off by an atheist is outweighed 1000 fold by the ridicule and disruption they visit on atheists and others.

Its not a scoreboard you want to pull out, considering an Atheist is trusted less than a rapist in the US.

"Her mind." I don't have multiple personality disorder

My apologies, your handle is rather gender neutral.

I find it astonishing that you would claim I've closed my mind to science, given that I am in a scientific profession

You have, so far in this thread, essentially spoken for God and his behaviour as if your interpretation of his existence is correct. You have argued God's existence as a matter of fact and put the burden on the rest of us for not being able to hear his voice. You have put forth the existence of angels as fact. You have essentially ruled your beliefs off limits by classifying them as supernatural and declaring science isn't allowed in that domain. You've made false equavalancies such as comparing god to exoplanets or the god particle. Two things of which were theorhetically possible according to existing science and in the case of exoplanets, pretty much a given fact even before we could detect them. Simply based on the scientific facts we already had.

You even argued over how you think religions began, and we're completely wrong I might add. Seifer was totally correct there. We began attributing the supernatural to phenomena we did not understand at the time. After we evolved the capacity for social understanding. When the human brain evolved to the point where we could imagine the feelings and thoughts of others, we likewise became capable of concieving of supernatural beings. Because we now had the ability to concieve of thoughts and emotions existing without direct evidence. We began attributing that to events we could not understand. Hence the vast abundance of natural gods in the history of religion. Even the Christian God is still in part an amalgamation of stories of earlier more elemental gods. Natural events no one understood at the time are attributed to him: Floods, plagues, the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

So you'll forgive me if I'm dubious of your claims of a scientific approach or your argument that your profession is somehow evidence. -.-

It's a fallacy to presume that science and faith cannot co-exist.

I never presumed as such. As I have said a few times now, my problem occurs when faith crosses the line and attempts to overrule or claim credit for science.

Many famous scientists were people of profound faith: Issac Newton, Galileo, Descartes, among many others as a historical example. While Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god (he was born into the Jewish faith), he denied atheism. In a modern context there is Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian.

Newton was basically a heretic. He thought worshipping god was a sin. Denied the exsistence of the holy trinity and thought Jesus had hidden the truth in secret code in the scriptures. Galileo was ironically responsible for contributing to the seperation of religion, philosophy and science. Willingly I might add. Decartes was more a deist, and was constantly accused of being an atheist in his time.

Einstein was a determist, he utterly rejected the concept of God, didn't believe in the soul or the afterlife and didn't believe morality or ethics were anything but a human trapping. But likewise rejected the label of atheist because he thought they were acting like dicks at the time. So he hardly counts.

Collins was an atheist until his parents died ( triggering the "No atheists in foxholes" effect if you will ). He's a bit of an interesting case as he's done a lot of work trying to reconcile the two, though I'm not sure he's had much luck and he still holds some backwards religious views.

GK, you've just shown an incomplete misunderstanding of the spread of Islam.

As you have shown a complete misunderstanding of what I said.

Currently, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, with Christianity holding a strong second. It is very much a proselytizing religion, and has always actively sought converts (including the sending of missionaries). However, I do agree that conversion by the sword was rare (though it did happen).

The only thing I said on Islam was that it was not as big on proletyzing as Christianity. That is true. A simple headcount will tell you that. As for being the fastest growing religion, by what measure? Percentage? Absolute numbers? Conversions? Being born into it? Not even the Pew Research Center was able to gather enough reliable data on the subject.

Various forms of Buddhism continue to attract new followers world wide, and many people of a wide variety of faiths hold the Dali Lama in great reverence and respect (I know I do). It may not seek converts in the traditional way we think of proselytizing, but it remains a vital and vibrant religious path.

Did you miss the part where I said I was Buddhist before? -.-