why oh why?

[jsanchez819]

Wish in on hand…
Today I was stopped by a neighbor while I was throwing my trash out.
Him: Hi, how are you?
Me: Crappy, it’s hot and I think I’m constipated.
Him: Well that’s too bad.
Me: It could be better.
Him: Listen I noticed your tattoos.
Me: Okay…
Him: Are you aware that god (lower case g) doesn’t like that.
Me: Did he tell you that himself.
Him: No but he says it on the bible.
Me: Who said, God, can you with all certainty prove to me that it was god who said this.
Him: Are you a non believer.
Me: No. I believe, but I am not one of you mindless sheep that goes willy nilly just because a book tells you.
Him: But is the word of God.
Me: And so it’s Cheetos…Look I have to go.
I am sick of Christians and religious aficionados who think that the word of a book that was written thousands of years ago holds water. I just can’t believe in anything that hasn’t been proven. The lack of scientific evidence leaves me with the opportunity to seek forth new ventures, i.e, (the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.)
Please read this…
<a href="http://theblackatheist.blogspot.com/2008/07/do-scientists-have-faith.html">Science</a>
<b> Wow. I could not have said it better myself, but I will try to do my best. </b>

To suggest that magic underwear, virgin births, reincarnation, ressurection, and wine and crackers turning into the blood and flesh of someone who died two thousand years ago are on equal footing with gravity and The first Law of Matter and Energy is too absurd to even bear repeating. The idea that the belief that the secrets of the universe are contained in a book written by people who believed that the earth was flat, less than four thousand years old, the center of the universe, and that the sky was made of water, is as sensible or anything remotely similar to the idea that we don't know anything with absolute certainty and all theories are subject to change as new theories are created and new evidence is introduced is unsupportable. They are completely dichotomous.

To make the claim that the belief that you can cure terminal illnesses with prayer is the same as the belief that you can cure cancer with surgery and chemotherapy or, here's a better example, the belief that you can cure AIDS with penicillin is idiotic. I use the example of the AIDS penicillin hypothesis to illustrate the difference. There was a belief among a fringe element of scientists that because the HIV virus behaved much like the Syphilis virus that it should be treated the same way, with penicillin. They tried it and it didn't work so the medical/scientific community discarded the theory. When has religion ever discarded theories because they didn't work? To even make the claim that belief in scientific theory is the same as faith demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method.

If a scientist were to make a statement like "seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will be opened. Ask and it shall be given to you." he'd conduct an experiment and if it didn't pan out even once the theory would be immediately discarded. In faith, when these claims invariably do not pan out they are rationalized with statements like "You didn't have enough faith" or "You should not test God" or the old fallback position "God works in mysterious ways". When the answer should be "Well, I guess that was just a bunch of bullshit." Fear and desire, emotions not facts, are the backbones of faith. Logic and empirical data, experiments with predictable results that can be reproduced, not unverified, unverifiable miracles that can never be reproduced, are the backbones of science.

Can we say that about religion? Can we?

[Kim Scheepers]

I'm not going to say that you must beleive in God or not just that you should take some time to look into yourself and really think about the question you have and honestly try to find the answers from within. Who else will you trust than yourself. :neutral: