Maybe it’s all about where a person sees themselves in the universe… an insignificant collection of atoms or a being with a god-breathed soul.

Worse when one tries to trash the other with insults rather than an intellectual debate. Again, not like any “side” is gonna win.

Atheists have a “church”?!? (Ref: msg 123) And I always thought that’s a place where people go to worship god?

like his belief that everything is just in our minds – a neuron fires this way and we do that – and that’s all we are. Very sad to me. Or if you have some notion that we are “star stuff” glopped together and trying to understand the universe. Again, that’s sad to me.

Maybe it’s all about where a person sees themselves in the universe… an insignificant collection of atoms or a being with a god-breathed soul.

Doesn't it take a dose of belief, to base your life on something that probably won't be proven until the time you are well rotten, 3 feet under the ground? Wouldn't that make Atheism, a form of religion just as well

If you REALLY want to know about reality truth science (eg : the thing that you use to get around, stays up in the sky for a certain durations)
Go research for yourself, its really easy.
Please note, science deals in fact and theology deals in opinions

Since most "religious" people don't know any atheists...I wonder from where do they get their opinions or views of them?

I suggest that you do so, because you will find that science mostly deals in theories as well.

I, as a Christian, happen to have many (more than 10, here on POF alone) atheist and agnostic friends that rock and admire their braveness, and the ones that are not full of hatred have taught me more about God than any Christian that I know.

I think atheists should do their best to try to be absolutely sure there is no afterlife.

I just realized science couldn’t answer any of the really interesting questions. There are values that are fundamental to an adequate apprehension of the world in which we live that can’t be expressed by equations or experiments. In that, you see the hand of God.

Atheists really have nothing to gain personally by persuading others to join in their non-belief in God except maybe to form a sort of brotherhood or kinship of non-believers. It would seem to me to be a somewhat sad society though; no life after death, no reward for earthly suffering, no seeing of loved ones in the life to come, no marvelous worlds and beautiful scenery to be explored.

I think atheists should do their best to try to be absolutely sure there is no afterlife. Read all you can get your hands on concerning occultism, near death experiences, astral projection, go to visit known haunted places.

You don't want to spend your entire life clinging to an assumption only to discover too late that you had it all wrong. It's your (after)life.

true enough, but in a scientific context a theory is an explanation.

So your statement essentially means that science has a lot of explanatory power, which is certainly true.

When a theory is proven and considered fact by every country in the world, its still a theory.

If there was a hierarchy of such things, theories would probably be ranked higher than facts.

It is more meaningful to understand 'why' something is happening than 'what' is happening.

And unfortunately there's a lot of people who try to poison the world with ignorance by insinuating that theory = uncertainty.

A scientific theory is an explanation, but in order to understand what a scientific theory is, one must understand what an explanation is. An explanation is an idea, where if the idea was true, then the evidence would be true, and if the evidence were false, then the explanation would be false. In other words, an explanation proves the evidence is true.

But we don't need to know that. Our experiments show that the evidence is true.

We want the explanation, and we cannot prove that. Why not? Because there are alternatives. But so what? There can't be that many, are there? Cantor's theorem shows that for n pieces of data, there 2^n possible relationships. In other words, for 10 facts, there are 1024 relationships. For 20 facts, it's about a million. For 30 facts, it's about a billion.

Even if you want to say that only one of a thousand relationships is an explanation, then for only 30 facts, you would have a million explanations. Most hypotheses are not based on 30 facts. Even simple experiments about people, which took no more than a few days, involved questionaires of over 100 questions, given to over 100 people. That is 10,000 facts, with the number of relationships bigger than a 1 with 3,000 zeroes. You want to guess how many explanations there are for one simple experiment?

So how do we come to the explanations that we have? Not scientifically. because we would have to test each and every possible theory. We come to those explanations through our imagination in that an explanation occurs to the scientist performing the experiment, and that is creativity. Creativity comes from our imagination. But our imagination is bounded by our previous beliefs about life, and about our personal experiences. It is biased by its nature.

So why do we have explanations at all, and how do explanations come to be accepted? That is because we don't like surprises, because if we didn't have an explanation for things, then we would know that there are things in the world that we don't understand, and therefore cannot predict when they will happen, so they could happen at a time that makes things very difficult for us, even dangerous for us, so that unquantifiable danger makes us feel unsafe, and uncomfortable.

So we love explanations, because they make the world seem predictable, and therefore a world which we can control. If we know when these events will happen, we can stop them or avoid them. So it makes up happier to have an explanation for things.

That is what an explanation is. It is a way of making things seem more palatable, so that we feel less afraid of the uncertainty of life.

Science has no power to explain anything, becasue the idea of an explanation is not scientifically testable by the Scientific Method. We can test if the facts contradict a hypothesis, but we cannot test if the hypothesis is true, only if it is false.

So where is the power of explanation? It occurs in 2 areas:
1) The area of imagination, in our ability to pick an explanation out of the millions that exist.

Our imaginative and persuasive abilities apply in many areas, and science is just one area of application. What makes scientific theories so much more palatable is 2 things:
1) The current view that scientific theories are always right, even when the facts contradict them.

2) The current process of scientists to deliberately pick theories that have Cognitive Consonance, meaning that they support most people's current beliefs, and play on them, making them easy to accept by people who don't make their own minds up about things.

So you see, Science has no power of explanation at all.

Science just reports experiments and their results.

The power of Science is in people's beliefs, and the persuasive ability of many scientists to play on that.

That is very true. But that's not the way people think. Tell enough people that the problems in their lives are because of the existence of a minority, and that if you eliminated that minority, whether by mass deportation or oppression or genocide, that their problems would equally well disappear, frequently most people in that country will believe you and will happily send those people to their deaths.

A theory that makes people believe their lives will improve, is far more likely to be accepted, even if it is patently false.

If there was a hierarchy of such things, theories would probably be ranked higher than facts.
As I explained, theories ARE ranked MUCH higher than facts, in what people are willing to believe.

However, in terms of a search for truth and understanding of the universe, the real goal of science, facts are must more important than theories, because facts are definite, and theories are only a possibility.

As I pointed out, understanding 'why' something is happening makes us feel a lot better aobut our lives that understanding 'what' is happening. But understanding 'what' is happening is more meaningful when it comes to the goals of science.

However, if we eliminate theories, then how can we draw conclusions about the world, given that we only have a small amount of evidence about what is happening, compared to the totality of existence? Well, we can look to the 2 subjects that are devoted to just that: statistics and logic. Statistics is the study of how we can make a generalisation based on a small set of data. Statistics tells us just how far we can afford to push our evidence, and how likely we are to be wrong, in other situations. Logic is the study of relating statements, which include the assertion of facts. So logic tells us what we can conclude by the facts.
Put the 2 together, and we have a method of drawing conclusions from the facts, and an ability of estimate how likely we are to be wrong, and therefore how to perform other experiments that will allow us to confirm those conclusions in the most efficient way possible, that gives us the greatest verification of those conclusions.

In reality, you can remove every theory in science and still draw the same conclusions, merely by using logic to draw them from the evidence, and statistics to tell us just how far we can generalise that evidence.

The difference is that such a method is not as popular, because it is far more rigorous and exacting and far more appealing to the intellect, but does not appeal to our feelings, particularly our fears and insecurities, at all.

A classic example of this is medicine. Many developments have been advanced in medicine, in the name of evolution.

But if you check these developments out, you discover that those developments are based on the generalisation that human bodies are homologous to non-human animals, based on the experiments that show just how similar the bodies of those animals are to humans, and based on the experiments that show that human bodies are based on human DNA, which is very close to animal DNA, which is the basis for their bodies too, and this generalisation is called Homology. But Homology can be shown by experiments.

So homology is a fact, not a theory.

In reality, homology is not a theory, because it is not assumed completely true for all animals or all situations. Each species has to be tested for its parts and functions that are homologous to humans. Even then, some animals have variants which mean that that animal is not the norm.

One scientific theory present during the Industrial Revolution was the idea of the Carbon Cycle, along with the Oxygen and Nitrogen Cycles. At that time, it was believed that any industrial pollutants would be reabsorbed into the atmosphere and rivers, and therefore the pollution made by industry would not adversely affect the environment.

Eventually, it was discovered that in the proximity of the industrial plants making the pollution, there was damage to the environment, particularly to people who lived there, especially children who developed Asthma.

So the industrial plants were moved out of residential areas. However, it was still assumed that the pollutants would be reabsorbed by the atmosphere, and passed back into their relevant cycles.

We now know this is not the case.

But this was only assumed because of the over-reliance on theories over facts.

The theories made us feel safe to let industrial manufacture progress at an unprecedented rate, for which we just didn't have the experimental data to confirm that this reabsorbtion would happen.

This led us to Acid Rain, Global Warming and the partial destruction of the Ozone Layer. So unfortunately there's a lot of people who try to poison the world with ignorance by insinuating that theory = certainty.

Theories are nice ways to make us feel better about things.

But we don't need them, and they are often harmful to us.

If you don't believe me, check out the # of women on the forums who have had a significant number of bad experiences in dating and relationships. Most of those experiences are evidence which would be satisfactory in terms of science, and constitute scientific evidence.

Many of those women explain their evidence by the theory that men are only interested in sex. This hypothesis is supported by their evidence and the evidence of many other women.

Those women have no other explanation that fits their evidence so accurately, and so their theory is not underdetermined by other theories. But it is not scientific, because it generalises about all dating and relationship experiences between all men and all women, when it only covers the experiences of these women with the men they dated and had relationships with, and only in the context of the specific pairing thereof, and only based on the circumstances they were in.

Were we to be more scientific, we would have to consider only that these experiences happened, and that they happened consistently to these women. That is all we could draw at a first conclusion. Then we could list their boyfriends, and what physical characteristics and personality they each have, and see if there is any consistency. Then we could look at how these men behaved with ALL of their other dates and relationships, and other women. We could also look at introducing other types of men to these women, just to see what might happen. We could look at their behaviour, and their mode of dress, and their choice of places to attend where they meet men. We could look at a number of factors. But if we just stick to the facts, and the theories out of it, one conclusion is obvious from the facts: the one consistent thing with all these women is THEM. That conclusion allows us to conduct plenty of experiments which can easily show which types of men are more likely to treat them well.

So even on POF, eliminating the theory and sticking only with facts, increases our chances of gaining truth and understanding, immeasurably far more than theories, and stops us making assumptions that lead to seriously erroneous conclusions.

This idea of needing a theory in science is extremely detrimental to both science and our society, because it is the direct source of both generalisations and stereotypes, which both cause untold problems in our current world.

Here are the things I know. I am an atheist. I have lots of religious friends. I will go to church with my religious friends. If nothing else, I've found my purpose as "the bringer of the tissues" for the weepy ones (they really get into their worship...it might be time for the family sized Kleenex box for church). All in all, they are some very nice people that I just like to hang with. The one who initially invited me the first time knows I'm an atheist. Others have probably noticed I don't really participate in service, but I listen and pay attention.

Some Christians from other churches though want to force me to believe what they believe. Some want my government to require that it take precedence over my way of living. I actually do worry that at some point the government will declare the US as Christian, and then I wonder what they will find to throw me in jail for. Possibly for spreading my point of view or questioning them?

My Fellow Americans:

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest -- until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - June 6, 1944

People assume I'm Christian because I'm nice and help others. If I'm not religious at all, but yet can show moral virtues, then where did I get my virtues? I would say they came from reason, because these things just logically make sense to me. It makes life run much smoother for me. Being immoral will cause trouble in my life, therefore it makes no sense to be involved in it.

What seems to make the most sense to me is that if a religion wants to say they are the most moral, then they really should be kicking out the immoral members right? Since there are so many immoral religious people, then the assumption that religion equals being moral is incorrect. Maybe if a religious person were to possibly lose their membership to whatever it is they are a part of when they break the rules, they would follow the rules?

Let's get something straight. You can be religious without being a politician, good or bad. But if you're a corrupt politician, then you want to be seen as religious, because you want people to do what you say without thinking about how corrupt it is, and who better to tell people what to do than G-d? Thus there have been many religious leader who had nothing to do with public office, but there have been no corrupt political leaders who didn't try and get the most popular religion to endorse them. Everyone from the Pharaohs, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Octavius, Constantine, Charlemagne, the Kings and Queens of Europe, all the way through history. If any religious leader disagreed with a political leader, then he had them killed if he could, and if he couldn't, he made his own religion.

People assume I'm Christian because I'm nice and help others. If I'm not religious at all, but yet can show moral virtues, then where did I get my virtues?

The world would still be flat.

As a matter of fact, every organization that I have seen in my personal life that helps those in need is a Christian organization..Why?

Correction. The Book of Isaiah tells us it is round, thousands of years before we Forrest Gumped our way to the truth.

Authors between late antiquity and Columbus' voyage (1492) who argued for a spherical earth:[56]

* Kings and politicians

Brunetto Latini, Visigoth king Sisebut, King Alfred of the Anglo-Saxons, Alfonso X of Castile

* Church fathers, popes, bishops, priests, members of religious orders

Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose of Milan, Aurelius Augustinus, Paulus Orosius, Jordanes, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Beda Venerabilis, Theodulf of Orléans, Vergilius of Salzburg, Irish monk Dicuil, Rabanus Maurus, Remigius of Auxerre, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Leo of Naples, Gerbert d’Aurillac (Pope Sylvester II), Notker the German of Sankt-Gallen, Hermann the lame, Hildegard von Bingen, Petrus Abaelardus, Honorius Augustodunensis, Gautier de Metz, Adam of Bremen, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Berthold of Regensburg, Meister Eckhart, Enea Silvio Piccolomini (Pope Pius II)

* Theologians, philosophers and encyclopedists

Ampelius, Chalcidius, Macrobius, Martianus Capella, Boethius, Guillaume de Conches, Philippe de Thaon, Abu-Idrisi, Bernardus Silvestris, Petrus Comestor, Thierry de Chartres, Gautier de Châtillon, Alexander Neckam, Alain de Lille, Averroes, Moshe ben Maimon, Lambert de Saint-Omer, Gervasius of Tilbury, Robert Grosseteste, Johannes de Sacrobosco, Thomas de Cantimpré, Peire de Corbian, Vincent de Beauvais, Robertus Anglicus, Juan Gil de Zámora, Perot de Garbelei, Roger Bacon, Ristoro d'Arezzo, Cecco d'Ascoli, Fazio degli Uberti, Levi ben Gershon, Konrad of Megenberg, Nicole Oresme, Petrus Aliacensis, Alfonso de la Torre, Toscanelli

* Poets, travellers, printers, seafarers, merchants

Snorri Sturluson, Marco Polo, Dante Alighieri, Brochard the German, Jean de Meung, Jean de Mandeville, Christine de Pizan, Geoffrey Chaucer, William Caxton, Martin Behaim, Christopher Columbus

This thinking has been church sponsored on many occassions. It lead to the DARK AGES. This thinking is what lead the Church to brand numerous scientists as heretics when they tried to teach against church doctorine.

I'm glad you can have a positive experience.

From a strictly historical perspective, I think it's unquestionable that the U.S. is becoming more and more secularized.

I believe that the church (my church, at least) serves primarily as a hospital for sinners, not a parlor hall for saints.