[Besoeker]

Since religion or the belief in a god relies on blind faith and science relies on evidence and facts, I have to ask is there a practical reason to believe in a god?

Also, in my experience the more impoverished the people the more likely they are to believe in or fear god. Wealthy educated peoples tend to be less religious than those from third world countries.

A man of reason. Good to see you!

And a a dyslexic atheist.

[Besoeker]

A man of reason. Good to see you!

My dog is a dyslectric atheist.

[One Degree]

Wealthy educated peoples tend to be less religious than those from third world countries.

This is why the word 'hubris' was invented. A few scientific inventions and people believe they will soon have all the answers to everything. They are above needing nature, faith, Gods. I wonder why no one on their death beds say, "I wish I had a better toaster".

[Godstud]

Why do you need a god, when the very idea is absurd? Some omnipotent, all-powerful being needs OUR prayers? Stupidity!

[One Degree]

Why do you need a god, when the very idea is absurd? Some omnipotent, all-powerful being needs OUR prayers? Stupidity!

This comment would appear to be based upon the belief that one narrow definition of intelligence is superior to all others. What is intelligence? You must define that before you can call another stupid.

[Godstud]

in·tel·li·gence
inˈteləjəns/
noun
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
"an eminent man of great intelligence"
synonyms: intellectual capacity, mental capacity, intellect, mind, brain(s), IQ, brainpower, judgment, reasoning, understanding, comprehension; More
2.
the collection of information of military or political value.
"the chief of military intelligence"
synonyms: information gathering, surveillance, observation, reconnaissance, spying, espionage, infiltration, ELINT, humint; More

[Red Rackham]

This is why the word 'hubris' was invented. A few scientific inventions and people believe they will soon have all the answers to everything. They are above needing nature, faith, Gods. I wonder why no one on their death beds say, "I wish I had a better toaster".

Hubris or for that matter god did not put a man on the moon, science did. And you may find the more science reveals the more scientists realise they do not have all the answers, yet they do not demand blind faith either. As Dawkins said... “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” Religion teaches us that it's a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding, it breeds ignorance. Which is why more enlightened people are less likely to believe that earth was 'created' less than 10,000 years ago [Even though science has proven earth is c4.5 billion years old] by some god or super being. What an utterly preposterous notion.

[One Degree]

What an utterly preposterous notion.

Has your scientific definition of intelligence made people happier?
The quality of life is determined by intangibles, yet you insist tangible things are the best way to achieve this.
Does this not seem wrong headed to you?
Scientific inquiry is great, but it is a small part of the human experience. Demanding it receives prominence above everything else is what is preposterous.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is and that's the point you seem to have difficulty in comprehending.
Go in peace.

I have no idea why you think I have trouble comprehending your overly simplistic defintion of atheism.

I have been able to show how it is wrong precisely because I can understand it, and how overly simplistic it is.

---------------

I find it odd that people dismiss religion because science is much better at describing our natural world.

Of course it is. That was what science is for. It is why we invented it. We did not invent religion to act as science. Religion has other purposes. It is like saying magnifying glasses are better than hammers because they allow us to see things more clearly, and then saying that we should not have hammers.

[XogGyux]

Of course it is. That was what science is for. It is why we invented it. We did not invent religion to act as science. Religion has other purposes. It is like saying magnifying glasses are better than hammers because they allow us to see things more clearly, and then saying that we should not have hammers.

The hammer does not try to do the job of the glass. Religion tries to do the job of science.

[Pants-of-dog]

The hammer does not try to do the job of the glass. Religion tries to do the job of science.

Not really. A very few number of theists do this, and this is a very recent phenomenon.

To try and claim that all religions or theists do this is an incorrect generalisation.

[Red Rackham]

Has your scientific definition of intelligence made people happier?
The quality of life is determined by intangibles, yet you insist tangible things are the best way to achieve this.
Does this not seem wrong headed to you?
Scientific inquiry is great, but it is a small part of the human experience. Demanding it receives prominence above everything else is what is preposterous.

You think so, mmm.

[XogGyux]

Not really. A very few number of theists do this, and this is a very recent phenomenon.

To try and claim that all religions or theists do this is an incorrect generalisation.

That its plain false. The premise of virtually all religion is explaining the natural world. So virtually all religions are meddling in the realm of science from the moment they are conceived. Estimates in the range of 30-40% of people in this very country believe scriptures are literal, that is not very few.

[Pants-of-dog]

That its plain false.

If you believe that, then please present evidence that religions were specifically designed to expalin the natural world, and/or that most tehists and most religions see this as the central task of religion.

Please present the evidence as a link to a respectable source.

The premise of virtually all religion is explaining the natural world. So virtually all religions are meddling in the realm of science from the moment they are conceived. Estimates in the range of 30-40% of people in this very country believe scriptures are literal, that is not very few.

I am not in the US. The weird literalist movement that you guys have is the very few to which I alluded in my previous post. The rest of the world does not have this problem or confusion.

[Red Rackham]

Has your scientific definition of intelligence made people happier?
The quality of life is determined by intangibles, yet you insist tangible things are the best way to achieve this.
Does this not seem wrong headed to you?
Scientific inquiry is great, but it is a small part of the human experience. Demanding it receives prominence above everything else is what is preposterous.

You think so, mmm. The quality of life may or may not be determined by intangibles indeed it may for some be determined by religion, although in developed countries they will be in the minority.

Scientific inquiry is indeed great, but to say it is a small part of the human experience is wrong. Science affects every facet of life regardless of god or religion which does not.

[Besoeker]

Scientific inquiry is great, but it is a small part of the human experience. Demanding it receives prominence above everything else is what is preposterous.

Don't think RR or anyone else demanded that.

[One Degree]

You think so, mmm. The quality of life may or may not be determined by intangibles indeed it may for some be determined by religion, although in developed countries they will be in the minority.

Scientific inquiry is indeed great, but to say it is a small part of the human experience is wrong. Science affects every facet of life regardless of god or religion which does not.

So, you are saying the quality of life is determined more by science than love, honesty, integrity, fairness, charity, etc? I am not aware of anything that would support your opinion on this. We have become a materialistic people, but this is just a false attempt to achieve intangibles. Deep down people still know what is important and it is not science. You may also argue whether God exists, but religion definitely exists.

[XogGyux]

If you believe that, then please present evidence that religions were specifically designed to expalin the natural world, and/or that most tehists and most religions see this as the central task of religion.

{1:1} In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. {1:2} And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters.
{1:3} And God said, Let there be light: and there was
light. {1:4} And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and
God divided the light from the darkness. {1:5} And God
called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day.
{1:6} And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
{1:7} And God made the firmament, and divided the waters
which [were] under the firmament from the waters which
[were] above the firmament: and it was so. {1:8} And God
called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.
{1:9} And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be
gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land]
appear: and it was so. {1:10} And God called the dry [land]
Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he
Seas: and God saw that [it was] good. {1:11} And God said,
Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and]
the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in
itself, upon the earth: and it was so. {1:12} And the earth
brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after
his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. {1:13} And the
evening and the morning were the third day.
{1:14} And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament
of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them
be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
{1:15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. {1:16}
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars
also. {1:17} And God set them in the firmament of the
heaven to give light upon the earth, {1:18} And to rule over
the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the
darkness: and God saw that [it was] good. {1:19} And the
evening and the morning were the fourth day. {1:20} And
God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the
earth in the open firmament of heaven. {1:21} And God
created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it
was] good. {1:22} And God blessed them, saying, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let
fowl multiply in the earth. {1:23} And the evening and the
morning were the fifth day.
{1:24} And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast
of the earth after his kind: and it was so. {1:25} And God
made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after
his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Please present the evidence as a link to a respectable source.

Now, you got me there. I don't think the bible is a respectable source either.

I am not in the US. The weird literalist movement that you guys have is the very few to which I alluded in my previous post. The rest of the world does not have this problem or confusion.

You are not aware of Islamic fundamentalists either?

[Pants-of-dog]

Simply quoting Genesis does not support your claim.

I find it amusing that you have beliefs about religion that are not supported by evidence.

[XogGyux]

Simply quoting Genesis does not support your claim.

I find it amusing that you have beliefs about religion that are not supported by evidence.

So you are denying that the bible makes claims about the physical world? WOW