Scientist Richard Dawkins proposed a seven point belief scale in relation to belief or non-belief of a god. A 1 would mena you know with 100% certainty that a god exists; a 7 would be 100% certainty that a god does not exist. He asserts that most thinking atheists would be a 6 and most thinking believers would be a 2. Where are you?
Are You Normal?
Ask your question today!
Do you believe in god? Where are you on the 7 point belief scale?
|
Does this post fit one of these flags? If so, click it!
[Off Topic]
[Inappropriate]
[Best Of]
[Vulgar]
[Funny]
[Fake]
[Weird]
[Interesting]
[Stupid]
[Lame]
[Messed Up]
Sorry, you need to be signed in to comment.
You are an atheist when it comes to every god except your own. I just go one god further.
I could write a book about this, but I doubt I'd be the first, and the Bible itself is of course sufficient for those with alot of free time. The Bible is alot like "Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin; They are both very large and controversial books that nobody actually reads.
GOD
Science is important because as ThisIsNotAUsername said without science we would not be medically advanced. Science provide facts which in my opinion is more important than some religious ideology.
Everyone's religious views are different and you cannot group them all together. We just got to accept them.
Sorry if my spelling and punctuation is not correct.
I put my trust in Science, he puts his trust in God.
If my boyfriend needs that there to comfort him, to get him through life, then who am i to take that away?
Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, it's just not my cup of tea.
Therefore, as a science nerd, i will always put my trust into that.
I think you targeted the wrong Atheist, my friend!
And what kind of a nerd forgets to capitalize "I"?
You're right, science may have nothing to do with Atheism, but i think you'll find a majority find comfort in it. Everyone has faith in something, be it God, science, a Llama in a hat, they do. If any atheist decides to hold their faith in Science, we have a right to respect that without question. So whatever your 'point' is, i really couldn't careless.
Science DOES save lives, you uneducated moran. How else did we find vaccines for diseases? Did you think they just magically appeared? Science is also blood transfusions, transplants, facial reconstruction, all things that help a human to live or live a life they want to. When you go in for surgery, you hold faith in the people and the science. Because, if it wasn't for the science, you wouldn't be on that operating table.
If you believe that, you can.
You're starting to bore me, so i'll leave you to it. :)
Science is only useful for the study of things that already exists in creation. But Creation itself is beyond the purview of science because it is an unobservable FACT.
So all moronic scientists, you are welcome to your endless debate.
At the end of the day, I'm leading a happy life with my Christian boyfriend.
He accepts what I believe, and I accept what he believes, that's all that matters, all that will ever matter.
Any arguments you bring up are invalid, because you know what? I'm happy.
and then the word (god) - An image used as an object of worship.
The second one being, there are all sorts of implied objects that refer to the term (god) and not (God) specifically.
On topic: I believe very strongly in God. I've felt his presence in my life and I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for Him. HATERS INCOMING!!! :))))
Not on the internet you can't. SERIOUS business.
We have no clue how the universe came to be. Every theory we have is just a theory. Until someone finds a way to get back to the future we have to accept our ignorance on this matter and stop bickering about it. This is like arguing over whether or not flying spaghetti monsters are real.
Something that is still in the testing phase or not widely accepted is called a hypothesis. When the average non-scientists uses the word theory they really mean hypothesis.
A scientific fact is something that has been proven using the "scientific method". The scientific method has never been applied to evolution. Any scientist who accepts it as fact has betrayed the purity of science. Furthermore, science is rapidly proving evolution to be an impossibility.
Evolution has thus far stood up to the scientific method. There is no widely accepted alternative (in the scientific community).
And your last statement demonstrated that you clearly do not know what the scientific method is. To quote the Oxford English Dictionary, the scientific method is "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." The theory of evolution is a pseudo-scientific philosophy that is not supported by established scientific facts.
Still, I do not preach about my ideas.
I am more on the science side (NOT scientology), I prefer to see things by fact, I also despise Christian ideals (I am forced into attending a religious program) as I find them mindless, arrogant fucks.
I deny the existence of a God, I await 2012 of next year to see if this is really true. If my whole family ends up getting raptured and not me, I'll stay behind and fight demons with Jesus!
In that case, you must know that it is a fact that the first living cell could not have come into existence by chance, and that complex biological systems cannot arise by chance. Those are scientific facts. The idea that these things could have arisen without intelligent direction is a religious ideology belonging to the religion known as atheism, or secular humanism.
And the whole 2012 thing has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. You are the kind of person that makes intelligent atheists face-palm.
How exactly do you know this? I don't think assuming some higher power did something is a better answer than "we don't know why".
Where did the higher power come from? Why is it exempt from your rule of a designer?
The classic answer is: if God created the physical universe, then he himself is not a physical being, and is not subject to physical laws such as time, and thus does not require a beginning.
ATHEISTS: Shrill teenagers who will do anything to come across as being intellectual and will believe anything a person in a white lab coat says.
RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: People who are too lazy to question the values and beliefs they were raised with and prefer blind emotionalism over reason.
There, I said it. You're both idiots.
I don't know if all religious people are too lazy. Some don't even think to question it due to the thorough indoctrination they received from birth.
As for religious people in the developed, western world, they are exposed to far too much "rebellious influences", for lack of a better term, to have apply to them any excuse such as "indoctrination". They are just too afraid to risk ostracizing themselves from their family or community, of which their religion is merely a side-effect of sorts.
Oh my.
As far as the actual argument goes, well. You've found someone who accepts the idea that if God exists he couldn't possibly be benevolent. Or evil. He would be both, because both exist. I don't accept the argument that no God would create evil as proof of his nonexistence, that's silly.
But then, I am terribly ignorant. What do I know?
Actually, I'm full of shit.
Why would you believe in something (god) without enough evidence? Atheism should be the default. We are all born atheists.
All of your examples are based on logic and experience. All of these things are absent in the case of God.
I sure haven't met him or had any reliable results from prayer in my life.
also, my computer keys are fucked, so my typing is horrible. too much of a chore on this old beast to make sure its perfect.
as stated these are just me own truths. they may not work for you, but they are mine and have a good holiday season
1) I cannot speak for all atheists. We all have different views, because we have a wider range of influences than one book.
2) You didn't say why. Without saying why, I don't know in what context you want an answer. I can't see any reason why it is relevent.
3) I don't want to be roped into a frankly ridiculous religious debate, which will do nothing but create bad feeling between atheists and theists, and serves no other purpose. As such, if you choose to respond to me, I will not respond back. It was a mistake for me to comment on this poll in the first place. There are a thousand things I'd like to correct you on, but, looking at it critically, doing so would be pointless.