You believe in man who has spent ALL of his time in one place?

So you choose not to believe when the word of God comes into your life because “there is no proof”, and you cannot “see” Him. But you gladly believe the words of scientists who tell you that gravity is an invisible force that affects all matter, not just on this planet, but in a universe that has billions of galaxies and billions stars in each galaxy? The scale and contents of the universe should be enough for anybody to believe. But why do you put so much trust in humans who time and time again prove themselves incompetent in the ways of truly understanding their surroundings?

Posted: February 24th 2010


Let me get this straight…

You are using a global computer network that exists solely because of the success of 20th century science to argue that we can’t trust humans because they are so incompetent at understanding their surroundings.

I think I just got an irony overload…

Posted: February 27th 2010

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

George Locke

Let’s compare the claims made by cosmologists to those made by priests.

  • Cosmologists use telescopes to acquire evidence. Priests use a combination of prayer, mysticism, and old books.
  • You know when a telescope is faulty because you calibrate it. (See for instance the remarkable story of the cosmic microwave background) Assessing prayers and visions is, shall we say, an inexact science. Historians have ways to assess the value of ancient texts, but priests fail to apply them to their scriptures. (The Bible is of some historical value as a record of the scene and setting of the events it depicts, but the events themselves are unsubstantiated.)
  • Cosmology is the study of outer space. We know outer space exists because, among other reasons, we’ve been there. Whatever it is that religion is about, this mystery is conveniently defined (and redefined) so that its existence can’t be independently verified or falsified by any fact. Some go so far as to doubt new data merely because they contradict dogma.
  • When a cosmologist makes a discovery that contradicts previous theory, her results are given high profile. If the discovery is genuine, previous theory is revised. When a priest discovers something that contradicts the Bible, the Bible will not be revised!!
  • Differences of opinion on cosmology are considered essential. The success and failure of cosmological theories is determined by vigorous scrutiny. Differences of opinion on religion are the cause of heated argument, family rifts, witch hunts, thumbscrews, even war. Such are the disincentives for challenging dogma.

In all these ways, cosmologists take every available step to ensure that their theories are accurate as they can be. In all these ways, priests take every available step to ensure that dogma remains unchallenged. I would rather trust the man who says, “I look forward to integrating new criticisms,” than the man who says, “If you don’t believe me then you’ll go to hell!”

Posted: February 26th 2010

See all questions answered by George Locke


And you believe in an entity that is everywhere and always existed, and yet botched up so much when creating the universe in which we live? Like creating parasites that have an affinity for chewing on eyeballs in living beings? What does this omnipresence mean in a practical sense? That god is in my big toe? Or my big toe is in god? And if so, who cares? Quick, how many angels can fit on a pinhead?

OK, once you go down this path, that there must be a god, which god is it? Oh, the god of the religion which dominates where you just happen to be born? What a coincidence!

I put trust in humans because they exist, no matter how terrible they may be at times or how wrong. Instead you put your trust in an non-existent being because you arbitrarily have decided that you only can trust perfect beings and that their absolute perfection is way more important than the fact there is no evidence for their existence. You are unable to accept reality and work with what we have.

And look how far humans have come in their understanding of nature—those gaps where god can hide are getting smaller and smaller.

Posted: February 26th 2010

See all questions answered by logicel

Blaise www

Let’s turn your logic around, and see how it works:

So you choose not to believe in science because “people are incompetent in the ways of truly understanding their surroundings”. But you gladly believe the “word of god” as delivered to you by people, since no human alive has ever seen or met him.

Do you see where your question falls apart? Even if there were no evidence to support the word of scientists, they would still be exactly as reliable as priests and prophets. But there is evidence behind science, that’s the whole point of science.

Certainly, no one of us could ever hope to do EVERY experiment for ourselves, and certainly some scientists will draw the wrong conclusions or make mistakes, but at the end of the day, science works in our daily lives, which means it’s inherently more believable and reliable than supernatural myths based on nothing but hearsay.

If you believe that scientists know nothing, you’d best never drive a car, since there’s no possibility all the hundreds of scientific principles that went into its construction could all work if scientists are just making things up!

Posted: February 26th 2010

See all questions answered by Blaise

brian thomson www

One key word in your question is “believe”, one that needs a little clarification.

What does it mean to “believe” in science? Does it tell me what to do or how to think about social issues? No, it doesn’t. All it can do is present me with evidence and let me decide. (I know it can get more complicated when politicians look to science for guidance, but not as complex as when they look to religions.)

When I meet someone who doesn’t believe in science, what can I do about it? Do I have any “moral authority” over that person, some inherent science-given right that that other person does not have? No, I don’t.

If Science is merely “the words of scientists”, how could scientists in different parts of the world, who never published or communicated their results, make the same observations and come to the same conclusions? Because the evidence for science is independent of its observers* and simply doesn’t hang off the word of any individual. People were “doing Science” before they could communicate in any form, written or otherwise.

  • yes, I know about Quantum Theory and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle; the role of the “observer”, at the subatomic level in that field, doesn’t turn Physics in to a subjective exercise, no matter what the Bleep Deepak Chopra thinks he knows.

Posted: February 26th 2010

See all questions answered by brian thomson

Daniel Midgley www

If I could boil your question down, it might amount to this: “Why do you not trust supernatural ideas, but you do trust scientific ideas?”

This is simple. Supernatural ideas can’t be tested or verified. Scientific ideas can.

Yes, individual people are fallible, but when scientific results are verified independently by many people, it’s very unlikely that they’re all going to get it wrong.

Science works. Supernaturalism fails.

Posted: February 26th 2010

See all questions answered by Daniel Midgley

SmartLX www

If we knew there was a God, He would be a very reliable source of information and we would probably trust Him in all things over any group of humans. Unfortunately, whether there IS such an entity is exactly what we’re trying to establish here.

If we accept the supposed words of God when they tell us there is a God, we are accepting the conclusion before the argument and begging the question. First we actually have to determine whether those words really came from God.

Posted: February 25th 2010

See all questions answered by SmartLX


Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum