deibido

Awesome! Now just devise an experiment to verify the existence of God, then build a device to harness his Holy Power and you have solved the energy crisis! We can all ride to work in Trinitymobiles. Are you seriously attempting to correlate scientific advancement with religious fiction as if they are one and the same? Really? You seem a lot smarter than that to me. "User assumes all risk"

From The Church of Reality: Choose Reality http://www.churchofreality.org "User assumes all risk"

There is no need for evidence to demonstrate that something is not real. This is obvious and has been said over and over. Give me evidence that there is no Santa Claus. Other than that he didn't give you a pony that year. Really, it's rabid dogma to say there is no Santa. The one making fantastic claims must support them, not stand there and say prove it's wrong. There is no need to refute "God" as there has never been one shred of evidence supporting it. Oh, and Hail Satan. . . . "User assumes all risk"

First of all, you can't prove the absence of something. If I tell you there's a tiny teapot orbiting the sun, how can you prove me wrong? Hubbell space telescope. Oh this teapot is invisible to the EM spectrum, and you know . . . very tiny. "User assumes all risk"

Your perogative, but most people are at least curious about it and ponder the possibilities. Does that not include you? The only thing I ponder, is if the universe is finite as it is currently claimed. Then what is outside of it's boundaries?? I don't believe in physicists or a god. See ? I have cajones. I'm with you on this. To me the Big Bang isn't much better than saying "God did it". What is outside and what happened before? "User assumes all risk"

That is an excellent straw man argument you have crafted. There is no dogma is requesting that assertions be backed with evidence. "User assumes all risk"

Your perogative, but most people are at least curious about it and ponder the possibilities. Does that not include you? Oh, just call me the Devil's advocate in this case. I'm terribly interested in everything, really. I'm just filling the shoes of this point of view for the moment. "User assumes all risk"

Assertion 1: There is no god. Assertion 2: I don't know if there is a god. Assertion 3: There is no reason for me to consider the concept of "God" at all. "User assumes all risk"

So is warp drive. Yet that doesn't mean that it cannot exist or that it does not exist. Indeed, scientists have often theorized about it. Without evidence that it exists, it is meaningless to say that it "could" exist. Certainly anything can exist, but reality is about what does exist. You can theorize that it is possible for God to exist, and I will agree with you. If you state that God exists I will ask for evidence. Fair enough? >Nope. But it would be foolish to believe that there are no purple unicorns, anywhere. To the contrary it would be foolish to believe that they do exist without any reason. It is an intellectual cop out to say that time and space are limitless therefore all things must exist somewhere at sometime. Again it is meaningless conjecture with no bearing on reality as it is. It does not add to our knowledge of the universe. >Now, if your attitude is "there are probably no purple unicorns anywhere, but who knows?" then your reasoning would be sound. Sound but useless. There is no such thing as 100% certainty, but that is not a reason to introduce fantasy as something which "could" be real. That for which there is no evidence must be considered unreal. >I agree. However, you said that atheists "disregard that for which there is contradictory evidence." The evidence for light being photons vs. just ordinary EM waves is highly contradictory; indeed, the particle/wave duality is one of the fundamentals of many physics course nowadays. Yet most scientists have no problem with accepting contradictory evidence, since they believe it fits into a larger theory that, although not 100% proven, predicts behavior of light accurately. I'm not completely sure what you are getting at here. Wave/Particle duality is not something for which there is contradictory evidence and the last time I checked light was just ordinary EM waves/particles in a certain level of wavelengths which our eyes happen to capture. It seems contradictory on the macro level, but it is perfectly normal on the quantum level. I'll give you that we can't seem to get quantum mechanics and normal relativity to fit yet, but they don't contradict each other either, they just describe different things. But we digress. "User assumes all risk"

An agnostic is an atheist with a brain. An agnostic is an atheist with no cojones. "User assumes all risk"

>To be an atheist, you have to believe there is no God. And there is as little proof for that as there is proof for there being a God. Here is the major fallacy. "God" is something made up. There is no need to prove it doesn't exist. That isn't how it works. If you come up with something new the burden is on you to provide evidence for it, not for everyone else to provide evidence against. You can't prove beyond any doubt that there isn't a purple unicorn living in your closet, should we believe in that as well? >So atheists don't believe in photons? Since the concept of photons both works experimentally and has been the foundation of many scientific advancements such as lasers and photovoltaic cells, I would wager that most atheists "believe" in them. At least until a better theory comes along that improves our understanding of reality. Do you see the difference yet? "User assumes all risk"

JackC has identified the correct. In fact, Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Agnostics, while honest, are rather boring for our purposes here. "Hell if I know", doesn't make for a very lively thread. "User assumes all risk"

Atheism isn't a religion, so really they don't get a say. To be inclusive we'll let Atheists in too, though. I'll start for them: They do have a very good church, it's called The Church of Reality. "If it's real, we believe in it". You see, the average atheist tends to believe in things that can be proven, so it isn't really so much about belief as it is about verifiable evidence for this wacky group of radical realists. The best part of this belief system is that it allows for change in the face of new evidence. Basically, the idea is not to believe in anything for which there is no direct evidence, and to disregard that for which there is contradictory evidence. Simple enough. "User assumes all risk"

Can you show that your religious beliefs amount to something more than complete delusion? All religions bring your A-game and show that your truth is THE truth, not just insane ramblings. "User assumes all risk"

A lifetime of dealing with the delusional and insane? Locked in a loony bin with no way out in sight, you might start worshiping a jug of milk too. "User assumes all risk"

So you HAVEN'T stopped. Disgraceful! Well the question is, you know . . . a bit complex. "User assumes all risk"

Oh you know it buddy, and don't expect dinner first either. "User assumes all risk"

[dehijack] The primary cause of the national debt is social entitlement programs, especially social security. [/dehijack] "User assumes all risk"

Tomatoes and chili peppers are fruit. Oh SNAP! Turn in your mancard dude. But yeah, Habanero Salsa is pretty much the best thing ever. "User assumes all risk"

Lime pickle, garlic pickle, mixed pickle . . . Bring it on! (with extra Naan, thanks) "User assumes all risk"

I'm curious to hear yalls plan of action when our aircraft carriers stop working... The Sailors will have to get new boyfriends? "User assumes all risk"

Never had it...but it sounds fantastic. Stop whatever you are doing, go to an Indian restaurant, order Lamb Vindaloo and a side of Hot Mango Chutney. Do it now. Oh, I hope you like spicy food? "User assumes all risk"

Gentlemen please, we must stop all this useless bickering and address the REAL issue here . . . Mango Chutney. The condiment of REAL men. "User assumes all risk"

I'm just a soccer mom, we don't make boobie pictures. Oh I know better than that. Much better. "User assumes all risk"

I did AFF at the Farm, and have since jumped at the Jumping Place in St. Mary's and Skydive Atlanta in Thomaston. I like The Farm best, but will probably be at St. Mary's more often because it's the closest. Of course my first training was at Fort Benning's Airborne School and Fort Lee's Parachute Rigger School, but Freefall dives just blow that stuff away. "User assumes all risk"