Ok ill give you all the other stuff as me "jumping the gun" so to speak. But on the subject of Buddhism, one they don't believe in a "god" so to speak. They believe that a man found enlightenment by following simple philosophical truths. In a way the religion contradicts itself. One of the main ideas is to not want so you won't suffer and find enlightenment. Yet if you find enlightenment and reach the afterlife and do these things to get to the afterlife than you WANT to get to the afterlife. Or even if you do it to not suffer you WANT to not suffer! Thus no matter what you do there will still be want involved thus stopping you from finding true enlightentment and reaching the status of buhhda. But while this may be true the main idea I can agree with as its simple easy to understand philosophical ideas that are to an extent true. so? The irony in that is if you are atheist and you are by chance correct in your beliefs than obviously it won't matter.
Even if we were right in our assumption of god, I doubt he would provide an afterlife for us. If there is some necessity for god to explain the universe in which we live, what is the necessity of an afterlife? Maybe I should start debating science. You might learn something. Long story short, its not random. It attempts to explain. You really need evidence to substantiate a claim before saying it should be an accepted explanation. Belief in god is blind for the simple reason there is no evidence for it. It shouldn't offend you, seeing as theists take pride in their faith. The belief or denial in a god is not close-mindedness. It is only close-mindedness when you allow a belief to interfere with your judgment and ability to think critically. In other words, when you reject evidence to preserve your own illusion of reality. Substantiate your claims.
Grow up. Say there really is heaven and hell. If you are an atheist, and you are right, it does not matter. If you are wrong, but have been a good person all your life, you go to heaven. (Unless god is an asshole, which i would doubt.) So please take some consideration before you type. In this argument, we are making good valid point to eacdh other, not ignorant ones such as yours. Well, i am not talking in that format, i am just talking in a logical format. You have no proof that God exists. You are then talking in the format you told me not to talk in, if that makes sense. If you had proof, this would not be such a huge debate. God is a belief. A pure, blind belief. You can never say it is not blind, because it may attempt to explain ,but it doesn't; it has no backing whatsoever. At least scientists have got somewhere with their proof, although if you wish to proivde evidnce for the theory of creation, please, go ahead.
- The afterlife is not something that is a big deal for me, it's just something that I grew up with, so I believe it. But if it turns out to be something else, so be it. I'm open to any other religions and ideas, it's just that Catholicism is what I grew up with. Nothing dramatic has happened that has made me doubt the foundations of my religion, so that is why I am content with it. Also, when I say the universe is random, I mean that it happened with no purpose behind it i.e. god's plan (whatever it is). I am using "random" in a loose way. - True there is no evidence for a God, but it's not like I'm turning down any facts because of my religion. I'm open to many things, but I just happen to think that my religion fills in the gaps best. If something happens that proves my religion absolutely false, then you can be sure I will dump it. - True again that it is close-minded to turn down facts in favor of faith. However, do you not think that it is close-minded to deny even the smallest chance of a god?
Define smallest. I give god less of a chance than Atlantis and Leprechauns. Though I do give him/her/it the benefit of the doubt. Take the floating tea pot for example. Is there a tea pot in space between the moon and the earth? I think not, but since someone proposed it the chance of it being there exists...unfortunately.
Smallest chance as in... "There might be a god out there, but I have no idea what to think about it. There just might be a big guy out there who did some really big stuff." Wait a sec... Atlantis I can understand, but the bit about them having advanced technology? And Leprechauns? What about Big Foot? =P
Well I am sure most people believe God has a chance of existing, you can't say that you are 100% that something doesn't exist or is false. Except in math.
I don't think anyone here said 100%, but people do. I was saying that you can't be 100% sure God exists or 100% it doesn't exist. Also science is not 100% accurate. The highest proof you can get in science are theories and those are not 100%. Like the theory of gravity. It is not 100% proven, but it is 99.9999%.
A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested upon and agreed with many times by different scientists, and it has to be a LOT of testing and a lot of scientists. However, it will not be considered a law usually because of a few or so exceptions that hold it back from being considered a law. The Cell theory is a theory, not a law, (for example) because it has the exception of viruses, and among other reasons, one of the rules can't be fully explained. -All cells arise from preexisting cells. The exception being, where did the first cell come from then? A law is a theory that has been continually retested, and still shows no exceptions or mistakes, works everytime it is tested, and thus is considered a basic fact of science. Gravity is a law. Going back to the cell theory exception, that is probably the area in which a theist will say, there is your proof of a God, because there is no other way that first cell could have come to exist otherwise, which goes to the creation theory... This is really where the big disputes in this argument can happen, where science is not completely positive on something, it will come into question on whether god made it or not...
As far as I know the law of gravity does not explain how gravity works at a quantum level. Isn't that where quantum gravity, String theory, and M-theory come into play? Does that make the law of gravity not a law?
So the law of gravity is not 100% percent correct....? While there may be descrepancies in the details, the idea that gravity itself pushes [toward the center of the Earth/a planet/a system] is correct. Gravity is a force; it has been studied and proven. Yeah, not all science is 100% correct, but what I was saying is that there are things in science that MUST be true in order for it to be used in further studies. And yeah ninja, it's string and M-theory against God pretty much. Kinda.
Well to be technical, gravity does not push downwards, it pulls all mass towards the center of the earth, where there is the highest concentration of a magnetic field.. but thats being technical lol...
Yeah, but nothing in science is 100% true. That is what I was trying to say. There is no law or theory that is 100% true. Also about M-theory vs god, I do not believe that will turn into anything. If they manages to find a way to test it and the evidence supports it, believers will say god made the strings. That was not why I brought the theories up though.
Yeah, that's why I said kinda. Theists will always have a reason for God to still be there, because it all had to come from somewhere... (good reason there is a god? yes? no? probably not). Oh yeah, I edited my post Zstrike. Haha. =) Side note on science: Even if there are such disprovable theories, isn't there an equal amount that is true? If something is true, then is it not 100% correct? (Unless, of course, you are speaking of laws changing on other planets/celestial bodies.) Care to point out what can be proven wrong? Anyone? (I'm talking about well-established rules in the laws of biology, chemistry, physics, etc.)