Hello all,
It seems i have opened a can of worms here and I would like to make some comments on quite a few of your posts however I will make them to you guys generally instead. So lets start at the beginning shall we?
filtherton
You mention the non-overlapping magisteria (that science and religion can occupy separate areas). Science deals with what exists based on evidence. If one then suggests that a God or Gods exist than that places the claim within the realms of science.
In regard to a later post, give me one logical reason or argument that can show that god exists.
Also: string theory is a theory that is highly debated in science and is mostly kept to the outskirts. String theory does sometimes seem illogical and that is why i dislike it. Because some scientists think this way with a lack of proof does not show that non-critical thinking can lead to truth.
Again: Theism is not consistent and its claims are indeed illogical.
n0nsensical
You seem to talk of belief and unbelief as both areas of faith. Faith relies on belief, science is based on logic, evidence and reasoning, there is nothing faithful about it.
Baraka_Guru
I must apologize that i said that science has proven all of it’s claims, mistake by me in the writing of my first point. I was trying to say that science, through the presentation of evidence, can show an alternate hypothesis to be so unlikely that it is essentially (though not) 0. I do accept that one can neither definitively prove nor disprove anything, however through evidence we can be pretty darn sure. I would not like philosophy to be done away with however philosophy and theism are completely different things. Theism makes claims that, see non-overlapping magisteria above, are within scientific realms. To me that is not philosophy. For your comment on Buddhism i would like to say this. Buddhists do not believe in a personal god but they believe in a god nonetheless and i would like therefore to include it in the category of theism. I realize that it has another name however i cannot think of it at the moment.
Crompsin
It is not about getting rid of it because i don't believe in it. My problem is that religion is taught as fact, unarguable fact. While the child eventually can discover the truth of the tooth fairy most children never discover the truth of theism.
In regard to a later post, logic involves thinking and reasoning, one plus one equals two, while religion involves the lack thereof, two plus two equals five if big brother says so.
Ustwo
You are a highly intelligent person and reading through these posts i can only congratulate you on your thinking and knowledge, well done.
MrSelfDestruct
How can someones religious belief that is only moderate harm someone? When someone is taught that unquestioning faith is the highest virtue than extremist activities are one of the only eventual conclusions. As for physical structures in the brain, how does that explain ‘conversions’ from faith to faithlessness.
Elphaba
Do we really need god if he is everything and impersonal, would that not be the same as having no god at all?
Tiger777
Brilliant.
jorgelito
You are misconceived to think that Newton and Einstein were religious however you are right to comment that logic and faith are quite different. Faith cannot exist to someone who has had their consciousness raised and if it does they choose it to be that way.
cheetahtank2
You are an optimist and not a realist. When people say, there must be something more to life they are grasping to irrational hope. Morals can be shown to be a Darwinian trait and do not come from religion, if you think they do you should read the old testament closely and find that the Abrahamic God is one of the cruelest characters of fiction ever conceived.
Reading on i found the word i was looking for in regards to Buddhism, deist or deism. Thank you Ustwo. Deism is a hypothesis that is pointless. If i were to say that (random example) beyond our planet there was another world on which lived a race of creatures that controlled our lives and made themselves invisible to us i would be making a pointless hypothesis. It has no evidence and creates more questions than it answers. The same is true with an impersonal god.
I hope these will get people thinking. Sorry if i have misread a post and made a comment based upon such a misconception. If i have been unclear please tell me and i will elaborate.
Look forward to reading more
Sedecrem