reply to post by pause4thought
dear god... (that is an expression, i don't actually believe in one)
There are a few flaws to your "logic" (as you like to call it). Why is it illogical to think in a way of proof, testing and constantly backed up
evidence? Wouldnt it be illogical to think that something that we cannot prove, test, see, hear, watch, witness or anything of the sort to not only
exist somehow, but create everything for no apparent reason?
You then state that you now have evidence to prove god. the water, the rocks, the life and so on. Now, after over-looking the obvious hypocritical
view behind "evidence is wrong, but i have evidence to prove I'm right", you then have to back up that evidence with more evidence. How it came to
be, why it came to be, what made it came to be, and so on. Otherwise you are just claiming in speculation that something made this other thing, which
is irrelevant to any argument.
Believing inanimate rocks and elements somehow came together by chance to form billions of life forms infinitely more complex than all the world's
computers put together defies maths, logic, and, frankly sanity itself. But no worries - we can't see who did it or even conceive a conscious Being
great enough to conceive and then put together an entire universe, laws and all.
UHG! this is the biggest thing in creationism that ticks me off the most. It isn't random! I will explain if you want me to but frankly i am really
tired of having to constantly go over this. True, though, that all the computers in the world cannot become as complex as the life on it. So, lets say
in the future (near future) that a computer were to become as complex, would you renounce your faith? Technology is young, modern science is young.
the days before both of these were what we like to call the dark ages (a time in which "science" and religion co-existed). You also are implying
that anyone not a theist, must believe in evolution. You generalize a population that doesn't believe in god, to must believe in something. this is
where you are drastically wrong. For being an atheist allows you to be different, we are all completely diverse. We don't follow the laws of one, we
take what is reality and apply it to the life we live, We don't fear punishment, we don't fear a devil, we don't believe that this is only a test,
we take life as a gift for we know it is our only one.
You go on to say that "god made himself present to us" and what not (i assume you are referring to Jesus). Now, that was a good 2000 and some years
ago. which is fine and all, however, there is barely any evidence that this Jesus actually existed. You may respond "the bible tells us", which i
would retaliate with this response. The majority of figures that wrote about this Jesus didnt actually witness him, or even were alive during his
time. Which would declare those words hearsay (heard from another). so what exactly is truthful?
I do realize completely that you are one of those extremists that protects all of their beliefs with simple lines like "it was meant to be" and "it
was gods will" and all of that fun stuff. Which also leads me to the familiar conclusion that you will have no chance in being persuaded in thinking
in any other manner what so ever because you are so incredibly close minded in your religion that you will not accept what is the reality. So, this
message is not entirely directed to you, but to the other theists out there that are willing to accept possibilities other than what the vast majority
of society wants you to believe in, a god.
Religion for most is a way to stay ignorant, for they, deep inside their subconscious mind, are afraid of knowledge. They are afraid to learn and ask
questions for fear of punishment and the possibility of a god actually existing. Unfortunately, there is no real proof of a god or gods, nor is there
a way to completely disprove god. However, on one side of the battle you have people offering wisdom, knowledge, evidence, facts, and information in
which the curious can visually see and do. And on the other, you walk blindly, following the orders of a book that may very possibly be wrong in many
cases, people that offer the curious no form of proof, no visuals, no way of knowing until the end, you only have a word from someone who believes but
also cannot proof, test or do. Which one is more illogical?