Book Burning

[denuseri]

If your so accepting and tollerant why is it every single time you get a chance (like someone even mentions the word religion in a thread) even if its not in a thread about religion vs aethisim, you resort too attacking those who do not believe as you do as "lazy" or "stupid" or believing in "fairytales and purple dinosuars" etc etc, without fail, knowing full well how derogatory such sophistry is; instead of recognizing their beliefs to be just as possible as your own, since both are indeed possible as science as of yet has no way to prove or disprove the existance there of?

And please while you chew on this one keep in mind that: many many "scientists" do indeed believe in not only a theoretical surpreme being or beings as not only being a possibility but as a mathematical certianty just as strongly as the aethiests believe in their assumptions despite any real confirmable hard evidence eaither way.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]If your so accepting and tollerant why is it every single time you get a chance (like someone even mentions the word religion in a thread) even if its not in a thread about religion vs aethisim, you resort too attacking those who do not believe as you do as "lazy" or "stupid" or believing in "fairytales and purple dinosuars" etc etc, without fail, knowing full well how derogatory such sophistry is;

Yes, I guess I have to admit that I sometimes get snippy about it. I guess it's a defense mechanism against being called ignorant, immoral or evil just because I don't believe in someone's fairytale. And yes, I do mean fairytale, because religious stories (at least the ones I know) have no more evidence of truth than the tales of the brothers Grimm. And yes, SOME theists are lazy or stupid, never bothering to understand what they profess to believe in, simply trying to force others to accept those beliefs as gospel. Some atheists are lazy and stupid, too. Alas, they are all too common human conditions. But it is not my intention to imply that people are lazy or stupid BECAUSE they are believers. You, for example, have obviously done a lot of study, even to the point of rejecting your birth religion in favor of something else. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I certainly don't consider them stupid.

instead of recognizing their beliefs to be just as possible as your own, since both are indeed possible as science as of yet has no way to prove or disprove the existance there of?

While I might accept that their beliefs can be possible, that does not mean that they are even remotely probable. When every attempt to prove the existence of supernatural beings, for thousands of years, has resulted in a negative, it becomes quite reasonable to accept that the probability of there actually existing approaches zero. Opposing beliefs are not necessarily equal. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese covered by a thin layer of dust is not just as acceptable as saying the moon is just a big rock. Until we actually drill there we cannot know for certain, but really, which is more likely?

And please while you chew on this one keep in mind that: many many "scientists" do indeed believe in not only a theoretical surpreme being or beings as not only being a possibility but as a mathematical certianty just as strongly as the aethiests believe in their assumptions despite any real confirmable hard evidence eaither way.

I know there are many scientists who still believe in God, or gods. I have never heard of any who accept it as a mathematical certainty, however. I do know there are "scientists" who try to distort evidence to conform to their beliefs, rather than the other way round. This is not the right way to do science, but as noted previously, scientists are also humans, and subject to the same frailties as anyone else.

A blogger I was reading just this morning made a comment which may be apropos here. I am an atheist. The ONLY thing that tells you about me is that I do not believe in gods. It says nothing else about who I am, or who I am not. It says nothing about anything else I may or may not believe in. It ONLY says that I do not believe in ANY gods. I happen to be a scientific atheist, meaning that I trust science, believe in it if you will, because science shows me evidence. I also happen to be anti-religion, which again has nothing to do with belief in gods. I believe, based on my observations and experiences, that religions are, or tend to become, organizations which foster hate and alienation rather than love and acceptance. NOT necessarily the people who subscribe to a religion, but the organization itself, such as the Roman Catholic Church, or Islam.

So yes, I do have beliefs and assumptions. But none of these have anything to do with gods. I KNOW, as much as it is possible to know anything, that there are no gods. Just as I KNOW that Santa Claus is a fictional being. Just as I KNOW that Little Red Riding Hood is an allegory. I cannot prove any of these things, especially to those who really WANT to believe in them. But the probability of there being a jolly old elf living at the north pole is just as low as the probability of there being a bearded god in the sky. If you want me to accept either of them you'll have to have pretty convincing proof.