Your Faith is a Joke

I don't need your respect, Pat.

I don't believe in the same religion you don't believe in. It is very easy to set up a viewpoint of religion in order to knock it down. Ignorance is always easier than understanding, or even tolerance.

After listening to you, I don't have much respect for your atheism. It is the same old warmed over argue that has been used as mistaken "proof" in the falsity of religion for centuries. (yes, centuries, atheism isn't really new) I keep hoping for someone with a new and cogent argument to present so I can have a good fight with them.

Well maybe the next one.

Religion is an abhorrence to intellect.

The point I'm making Michael is that atheists, or at least this particular atheist isn't showing much intellect either. Hank's article is a much stronger argument. Telling someone they are stupid, regardless of how many times you repeat it does not constitute a scientific or rational argument. It is and remains an opinion until it is supported by something. You are welcome to your opinion, but don't present it as a fact or science.

"You are welcome to your opinion, but don't present it as a fact or science."

It's kind of funny to see a religious person say that. If you don't think what you believe concerning your religion is a fact, how exactly do you believe it?

I don't present my religion as science fact. I don't drop into sites and suggest that my opinion counts more or less because I'm religious. When it comes to the world I deal with facts the same as everybody else. Well everybody except for a certain class of atheist who thinks that because they believe something that it is science.

A worthless pastor wrote "I don't have much respect for your atheism."

I suppose if your entire career depends on idiots like you who believe in god fairies and Easter Bunnies, you wouldn't have much respect for people who are not insane like you are.

Type "darwin killed god" in the google search box then click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.

Pastor_Alex, the burden of proof is on you, not the atheist. An atheist is simply someone who has entertained the books and ideas of religious people and found them to be ridiculous. When a scientist is attempting to convince you of something, he presents his evidence and argument, which is based upon the laws of physics. What does the religious believer present? Dogma, superstition, subjective feelings.

You said, "I don't present my religion as science fact". OK. What do you present it AS? Why should anyone entertain or respect what you present when you yourself are admitting it isn't factual? What is it? If it isn't based on fact, it's best dismissed is it not? If someone presented to you the idea that the sun revolves around the earth but then qualified this statement with " I don't present this as fact". What would you even say to that person? Sounds insane to me.

You claim that "When it comes to the world I deal with facts the same as everybody else". No, you don't. Not if you're making claims based on something you admit is not factual.

Is there a god? The only intelligent answer is: there is no evidence to support that idea.

This seems to be directed at one particular religion, rather than religion in general, since if taken against all religious ideas found anywhere in the world makes no sense. For instance, I am a Taoist, and Taoism has not brought any negative consequences to the world, quite the contrary. I would think that the absolute lack of empathy expressed in the video towards his intended subjects displays far more of a danger to humanity than the actions of Buddhist monks in Nepal. Further, the person who posted that religion is an abhorrence to the intellect is merely showing their ignorance. Niels Bohr based his entire idea of quantum mechanics on the religious ideas he studied in India, and Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." But then Einstein also said "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." and "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Michael J Pannell would do well to heed those words before spouting off about intellect.

Last comment from me. Let's separate opinion from fact shall we? There is no scientific proof for the existence of God, there is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist. Your opinion doesn't count as proof. There is no burden of proof on me, because I'm not interested in proving God exists. It isn't my job.

What bothers me is not the people who deny the existence of God, but the people who deny the existence of God and insist that SCIENCE has proved them right. What that statement proves is not that God doesn't exist, but that they don't understand science.

A half truth.
There is of course something to what you write, Alex, but consider how science was originally a rebellion against the Church: for instance the Church censured Galileo because Church authorities rightly surmised science would undermine Church authority, and by extension religion in the long term.

Pastor_Alex,

I hear this mantra repeated by the religious all the time. Of course there is no scientific proof for the non-existence of god. There is also no scientific proof for the non-existence of leprechauns. The whole idea that we could find proof for the non-existence of anything is ridiculous. What would that proof consist of? There is no proof FOR the existence of leprechauns, therefore we do not believe that leprechauns exist. It makes no sense the other way around. The way you think, one could say the following: There is no proof for the non-existence of leprechauns, therefore I believe in the existence of leprechauns.