"Arrogant Atheists"

Sure .. Why worry about the environment or the debt that our children will have to pay off, or nuclear war .. The rapture is comming !

I seriously wonder whether or not Bush's animosity towards scientists and some of his other policy decisions was due to this belief.

I think folks that take the rapture seriously shold be banned from high public office.

We need folks in office that want to make the world here and now a better place rather than trying to fit into some script that may or may not ever happen or may happen 10,000 years from now, or may have already happend.

This issue is similar to Muslims willing to blow themselves up in return for the many virgins they will receive in the afterlife.

Folks should life their life to make the world a better place here and now because none of us knows what awaits on the other side.

 

I certainly hope there is lots of strong sauce of some kind to hide the flavor.

 

Can you prove that religion does not work for the purpose for which religion was initiated?

Can you prove that 'prayer' was not a necessary ingredient in the various inventions that you attribute solely to science?

Well gee whiz... there must be a lot of idiotic people holding phd's that agree with me. Science cannot prove anything. Doubt me... Google the phrase "science cannot prove anything" and check out who a lot of the proponents of such an idea are.

 

Can I please point out the flaw in this logic and any logic at all relating to debating god? Science exists to explain and advance the natural world. God is supernatural. It is not possible to prove god exists. However it is not possible to prove it doesn't.

See we can show science today made all these things possible however some guy could come along god influenced the invention of all these things and there is NOTHING we can do to prove he/she/it didn't. The same could be said of a giant pink elephant with very small cupid wings and a trunk made of rainbows. Science deals with the natural world. God is outside its limits. We could debate it till the universe ended if we wanted and make no progress so why bother with it?

 

On the fact that in 50,000 years of mankind's existence, there is not one fact, not one iota of evidence to show a god or gods exist. All we have are the myths, superstitions, suppositions and imagination of humans to support the existence of any gods, and sorry, but they are NOT facts, NOT evidence, NOT valid for proof or anything.

 

We have done covered that subject. Just because you do not want to accept the available evidence, does not mean that evidence does not exist.

Where is the valid proof that a hydrogen atom only has one electron and one proton? Come on ... provide the evidence... not just the stories, myths, suppositions and imaginations of humans to support such a claim. Where is the evidence? I need something valid to serve a proof that a hydrogen atom only has one proton and one electron.

 

That is like asking - Can you prove that "Purple Fairy" was not a necessary ingredient in the various inventions that you attribute solely to science?

You are the one saying an invisible super being exists. It is up to you to prove it.

 

Yes, it actually does. Well ok, not just because of what Tomteapack wants or not but because of the nature of divinity. A phenomenon that can be attributed to a deity can without any loss or gain in explanatory power be attributed to another, similarly unknown entity. To put it as short as possible, this means that evidence of a god cannot exist. It is simply unfalsifiable by definition.

You've still got this backwards.

It is not the model of a hydrogen atom that constitutes evidence of a hydrogen atom. It is the behavior of a hydrogen atom that constitutes evidence of the model. In other words, there is no "proof" that a hydrogen atom consists of an electron and a proton. Heck, there's not even "proof" that there are electrons and protons, or even atoms. For all practical purposes, hydrogen simply behaves as if the current model is accurate.

Go study chemical bonding and see if you can come up with an alternative model. Then we'll talk because then you may actually have some weight behind you instead of just empty animosity towards anything but your own presuppositions.

 

Religion was created out of fear of the unknown for the purpose of alleviating that fear, by having a super-being intercede for poor humans. Since we now have religion and the same people that partake of it, still fear the unknown, death, hell, (*)(*)(*)(*)ation, demons, monsters in the dark, Muslims, Christians, atheists etc, then RELIGION DOES NOT WORK.

 

By your own words, you have proven that no god or gods exist. "god is supernatural" <---your words. Since the word SUPERNATURAL means beyond the natural, and nothing exists that is NOT natural, then the supernatural and all the demons, god, ghosts and other nonsense claimed to be part of the supernatural do not exist.

 

you keep saying that I do not want to accept the available evidence yet you provide none--that is because as I have repeatedly stated, no such evidence exists.
As far as science, the fact that you are using a computer to pose this nonsense proves that science WORKS, that its foundations and beliefs are valid, valid enough to repeatedly produce new toys for you to deny, and new computers for fools to spout nonsense on. The proof is in the USAGE. Religion produces NOTHING but contention and foolishness. Science produces everything that makes you life great and fun and better than the life of your ancestors. Get used to it, science is real and valid, religion is mythological superstition.

 

many studies have been done on prayer, and none have shown that prayer does ANYTHING. Some studies have shown that a personal belief in prayer does help the ones with that belief, but studies have also shown that personal belief in Allah, shiva, and the pasta god also help those with those beliefs. Belief is quite a powerful thing, it can help a person get well faster, feel better and think more clearly, but prayer does NOTHING.

You can get any remarks from any idiot on Google, lol. The fact remains, that this SCIENCE that you believe can prove nothing, created the Computer you are using to make such an idiotic comment. Nuff said.

 

Let me guess. The many studies that were done, were done by people calling themselves 'neutral' while at the same time, are recognized as having a vested interest in making sure that the outcome of the studies showed that "prayer" does not do "ANYTHING". You forgot to mention in the last line of that opening paragraph that a 'belief in the power of prayer' is what encourages a person to make those prayers. So, you see, you speak with a forked tongue.

You can also find almost any absurd remark here on PF if you read segments of the forum daily. Like the one where you make the suggestion that I don't believe in science when it is a public record on this forum that I have stated that I hold a degree in computer technology. Some of your comments are laughable.

 

No matter what the outcome is, the researcher will always be considered a supporter of the opposite team. It's one of those.

And how can you empirically prove that a prayer does not work? Say, the subject is instructed to wish for something that is unlikely to happen. But God does not reply to each prayer... From a group of 100, at least 1 got what they wished for, so proving that prayers do nothing is, hmmm, how do I pc this, .................... not very intellectual.

God, 1 hour and this forum makes me want to leave it. No 'delete account' though.

Any thoughts on that?

 

Oh... Please. I would not even attempt to prove that prayer does not work. I am fully convinced, persuaded, certain beyond belief that prayer does work, therefore, there is no need for me to attempt to prove otherwise. That would be self-defeating.

And on what side of the fence are you standing?

Bet it sort of makes you feel like you have been violated huh?

Yeah! Come back when you can't stay so long.

 

I was commenting on the original post (the one about the prayer).

I do believe that some atheists can be annoying, but they are just the equivalent of someone who is trying to promote their faith.
They both would do it for some kind of personal gain, be it the desire to find people for that new church we're opening or the fact they want to be priests and it's not in their interest to live in a secular society, or because they want to sell their book on atheism or because they are simply narrow minded.

I am an atheist. Personally, I believe religion is a beautiful thing, just not that type of religion which suggests one God, who is, by an amazing coincidence, in the shape of the ruling class male.

If you support your faith strongly, then you might achieve something. Show the good side of religion, it promotes morality which people desperately need now. Oh, well. Only half of it.

As for atheism, this calls for one making up their own morality standards. Sounds romantic and nice, but people are going to go too far. Still, the most advanced and liberal Western countries have the largest number of atheists. So if I am to pick a side of your fence, it would definitely be atheism, but one with a predetermined set of morals that are fair to all, rather than the absolute freedom of people to come up with their own moral standards.

 

Answering to supernatural entities is a pathway to arbitrarily coming up with own moral standards. Answering to society is not.

 

You do not see the difference between these two DIFFERENT CONCEPTS?
Prayer to a supreme being causes that supreme being to act on my needs.
My belief in prayer gives me a feeling that allows me to help myself.

??????
prayer does not work, because no god or gods exist. A belief in prayer can for some cause a mental state in which they can do things for themself.

In studies where people were pryed for, and the ones being prayed for did NOT know they were being prayed for, there was NO difference in any outcome than for those that were not prayed for. So, prayer does not work. however in some who were told they were being prayed for, a few had some minor improvement, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED IN PRAYER, not because prayer itself did anything.

 

One of the studies had a large number of people, praying for particular people with particular problems in a hospital, and in the same people, a number of people with the same problem were not being prayed for. None of the patients knew anything about the prayer one way or the other. After thousands of people were prayed for, there was no real difference between the two groups, although there was a minor statistical variation between them, with the ones NOT prayed for, improving at a slightly faster rate than the ones prayed for. The minor variation was of no statistical importance, for the number of people in the test.

This is about as fair a test on prayer as you could come up with and it shows that prayer makes no difference in the healing process.

 

Which means that the "study" clearly showed that God/Shiva/Ra/Zeus/Viracocha/[insert whatever] did not intend to make a difference in the healing process, and therefore that prayer works!


Prayer works equally well regardless of the outcome, namely to invoke the will of whichever deity a person prays to.

Thus, there is nothing fair about testing prayer because it is inherently untestable. I'm actually baffled by learning that "studies" have been made on this. What an utterly stupid waste of time and effort. And probably of money as well.

 

Personally, I would like to see the results of such testings. Do you think they have been publicly published?

 

'Society' is just as abstract of an idea. The supernatural merely mirrors society in many ways. What I meant was you will have the chance to start from scratch and with the pop culture today it could go a bit too far (yes, I assume there is a 'too far', call me narrow minded if you wish). When it comes to history, though, it's very obvious that religious morals have been created so that they will serve the people who came up with them. You want to justify the death of your enemies, blame it on God. Want to justify oppressing a woman, blame it on God and so on....

In this case we have 2 'polar opposites' - atheism and religion. They both give you the freedom to come up with what is morally acceptable.

Want to kill:
Religion: Kill in the name of God, for only one God exists and the other people's God happens to be a different one somehow. Or if you are to kill a fellow christian, do it for a trillion other reasons which can be drawn out of subjective interpretations in the Bible.
Atheism: kill because there is a rational explanation for it. If it's not obvious, we'll come up with one on the spot and it would involve researches, so you know it's legit.

Want to oppress:
Religion: For some reason men are awesome, but they need someone to take care of them and carry children without being rewarded. A woman would eat the forbidden fruit so all women are to be punished forever!
Atheism: it is only rational to believe that a woman must remain at home and create a warm environment for her children. There must always be one sex who is slightly more in charge and since women need to take care of their children, it is them.

The point is. Arrogant atheists are just as bad as modern fundamentalists. They simply want to justify their actions in a different way.

The best way to deal with it is to stay away from that mess and THINK! For that, however, you need to be an atheist but not take too much pride in it. Remain neutral.

 

And when I say 'just as bad' I don't truly mean it in a negative way. This is just an expression. It means =

 

Don't know, don't care. Ask the posters who referred to such 'studies'.

 

Nah.. Just thought it to be interesting, that yet another claim was thrown into the mix without substantiating evidence.