Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Religions are not based on nothing. Why don't you try to identify what religions actually are based on?

 

Exactly, a lot of science is not directly observable or repeatable, but based on speculation and inferences based on other things we better understand.
We use our best logic to imagine what we cannot see, and then accept those things as reality.
"Science" has been wrong before on several occasions in the past.

If we applied all the same harsh exacting standards that atheists apply to religion, we would have to come to the conclusion that much of accepted science is a "false" system. So there are clearly some double standards at play.

 

The difference being that a scientific theory can be tested and when new evidence comes along we update our understanding. We don’t know everything and likely never will, but we are always in pursuit of knowing more. We will be wrong along the way, many times in fact, but when we find we were wrong it means we have come closer to the truth.

Religion does not strive for that same understanding.

 

My bold. You're quite right, science is fake and doesn't work! Computers don't work and neither does the internet, which is why you're not here! Your car doesn't work and neither do your TV and phone! Aircraft don't fly either! You're the guy from the other thread, right? Myth is the same as reality? LOL!

 

The fundamental and it seems purposeful misunderstanding of what Science is and does seems to be at issue here. Science and scientists do not "Prove" what they work on, though that is the end goal it is very rarely attained. Instead evidence is gathered to push hypothesis into theory and theory is then built upon and confirmed through observation, experiment and peer review of results. This creates great problems for deity worship and faith as they can never leave the hypothesis stage.

 

Interesting how some religious people equate science and atheism, it really shows that they do not understand what atheism or science is at all.

 

I think I did not misread your post.

You said, " I never see the media present atheists who are respectful of other people's beliefs. "

Forgetting for a second that I've seem many atheists who communicate thoughts that are respectful of other people's "beliefs"...

...what you are asking for in asking for respect for "beliefs"...is respect for the blind guesses religious people make about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...namely, the existence of a god.

 

What are you talking about?

I never said religions are based on nothing.

As I see it, almost every religious comment...is a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Do you disagree?

For instance, is "there is a GOD" anything other than a blind guess?

 

There has never been a time when the scientific consensus is fixed and unchanging, and I doubt today is any different. The Catholic Church didn't try to suppress Galileo any less than today's scientific establishment does those who refuse to toe the party line.

Science is no more able to prove or disprove an omniscient, omnipotent God than a Toyota Prius can compete in the Indy 500.

 

I would call it a logical inference.

 

The science that is speculative is admitted to be so and are called hypotheses and are awaiting strong evidence before being fully accepted. The science that isn't directly observable (atomic theory, quantum mechanics, black holes, etc) must be testable and produce falsifiable predictions that can be tested. By confirming these predictions, we can know that atoms and black holes are real.

So lets use the same testing to confirm religion. Perhaps lets devise some experiments to detect heaven and hell. What about experiments to detect the existence of angels and demons? Lets do a study testing the power of prayer. Lets do a large national study to try to officially document the first miracle. Maybe we can detect something in the brainwaves when God is communicating with people during scripture study and prayer. Are there any falsifiable predictions that can be yielded from your religion that can be tested?

 

You can "call" it anything you want. Some call it a "belief."

But what it is...is a blind guess.

 

Since you don't know everything and never will, shouldn't the God hypothesis be on the table, especially as more evidence for design emerges?

 

This displays either a remarkable lack of historical knowledge, a remarkable lack of modern knowledge, or both. Let's face it, probably both.

 

Since you don't know everything and never will, shouldn't the Zeus hypothesis be on an equal table?

 

How can complexity be evidence for design when there is a mountain of evidence that natural selection and mutations can produce this design? Even if there is evidence of design, how does this prove that this designer is a God or even your God?

 

how do you think the first God became.. unaided?

if you say God did it, then you have to ask the same question about a God, as you just added in a magical being to replace the unknown, and moved the unknown one step back

 

Science can't prove or disprove reincarnation or magic fairies either. Science is an imperfect process but at least its self-correcting and uses evidence, unlike religions.

 

not every thing is known, and that is ok, things that happened so far in the past may never be 100% known

I don't know what I ate last year for dinner, no way to find out as too much time has passed

 

Then obviously you ate God!

 

and no God has proved itself to exist

 

guess sense science is not able to prove I did not, you must be right

 

not only that, an all knowing, all powerful God would be much more Complex, thus need a designer too by the same logic

 

Yes, a designer needs just as much of an explanation as the things he designs. If creationists rejected evolution and the big bang my response would be then that maybe complex life always existed just like they say God always existed.

 

I’m a Unitarian Universalist so I already believe in the possibility of a god, but that view doesn’t match up with what we can observe. It’s a feeling and is only valuable to me.

The God hypothesis is welcome at the table assuming it can be measured or observed. What evidence for design are you aware of?