Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Manic]

Remember, folks: The problem with our society isn't religious nutcases or godlessness. It's a-holes who don't like people who think differently.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Remember, folks: The problem with our society isn't religious nutcases or godlessness. It's a-holes who don't like people who think differently.

Exactly.

 

[redhawk23]

I think the problem you may be having is how you're looking at the word "serve"m and the connotations that it has. God isn't asking us to wait on him like a butler or a slave. To "serve God" is to love and help others. Its not a "me-centric" life, but a selfless life - to do good deeds and to help those in needs; to be the person you're meant to be and live a good, fulfilling life in that regard. Because God is love, and he wants us to love, loving others is a "service" to him.



Oh, I understand that. Completely. I's a shame. But consider this: So many atheists don't "question" religious folk out of a honest desire to understand or learn. They question with the intent to try and discourage and/or start arguments. Look at Bill's post above. His post wasn't a sincere question; it was an attempt to prove his position, which in turn lead to him actually insulting my ability to think for myself. This is how many atheists act they can be just as arrogant and self-assured as the religious people they complain about. Both sides are equally guilty of handling their and others' opinions poorly.

Rather than any specific instance or question or intent, I was speaking more about a general philosophy in life, in terms of not simply accepting what is told to you. Any individual from any group cannot simply stand for the group as a whole. I'm speaking more of the overall ideology espoused by groups of people.

 

[Bill]

I agree that one should not make excuses, but the admission that we simply can’t or at this time don’t know everything is not an excuse; it’s a simple fact of life that transcends religious boundaries. That’s where faith and study come into play.

The Bible enables one to know a great deal about that particular God. It is full of descriptions for what God does, how He acts, and what you should do. There's enough to know. The problem is getting people to face the issues honestly.

God doesn’t NEED anything. If he NEEDED anything, he wouldn’t be God. That’s a point you’re missing (along with the anthropomorphic nature being a human addition for human benefit).

This God does. So much so, that you will be punished severely if you fail to give it to him. If he doesn't "need" it, then why is it a sticking point?

I am well aware of the characteristics a god should have. The problem is that this particular god is exhibiting characteristics it shouldn't, yet people still acknowledge this god. And when this god voices his emotions himself and acts accordingly, it's difficult to attribute it to a human addition. If God says he wants something of you, and is willing to punish you and your progeny if he doesn't get it, then are you saying that I should dismiss this act as mere human addition?

The act of giving God honor and worshiping him (which means much more than simply “getting on ones knees and singing”) is GOOD FOR US. By worshiping God (which can be anything from focusing on God, to appreciating our blessings and to serving the community/doing good deeds), we are experiencing positive emotion and spreading that to others. It is, as someone else said, focusing on the greater good. But worship isn’t everything, and it certainly is not a pass into Heaven. Worship is not groveling at Gods feet. Its is about loving, him, thanking him for his blessing, and following his moral code. It’s a way for us to have an active relationship with him. It has nothing to do with GOD’s need, but OURS. When you kiss your girlfriend/wife and tell her you love her, do you do so because SHE wants you to, or because YOU want to express that love outwardly? When you selflessly express that love, does it not have positive effects on you and your relationship? God does not “demand” it; he’s merely letting us know that worship is good for us; it is a way we can express that love (if we so choose to have it) and fertilize our relationship with him.

You can be kind, feel good, and do good acts for others and not worship God. You can be thankful for what you have, and work harder to achieve more, and not worship God.

For your example, I may act affectionately toward my wife. But she also needs me to do so for reassurance. God seems to need this reassurance as well. My wife will feel neglected and hurt if I do not act affectionately. God will punish me and my progeny for a few generations. And if I keep on not acting affectionately, I may find myself in a very nasty place. Divorce court with the wife, Hell with God. I think I prefer Hell.

I’ll be honest and say that I don’t appreciate the tone and assumptions you’re making about my ability to “think for myself”, as well as your assumption that religious people do nothing but “make excuses”. It shows are really shallow understanding of the mind of a religious person and isn’t a mindset that I feel is even remotely beneficial for open and intelligent dialogue.

Not all religious people make excuses. It depends greatly on how seriously they take the Bible and how they rationalize what it says with what they want it to say. Some have God dwell more in their mind than from the pages of scripture. I don't blame them for doing such a thing, but what they perceive as God isn't the God that the Bible describes. And with good reason.

There are things that we know and things that we don’t. The bible was written thousands of years ago and by that very nature, there is a certain degree of separation, which in turn leads to confusion and misunderstanding. That’s why it is important to actually study the bible, to peer into the original text and language and gain a better understanding, and there are countless ways to do so. Even then, we won’t know or be able to fully understand everything about God That is not a knock on religion; it’s just an admission of the limits of our ability. Do we condemn science for not knowing all there is to know? Absolutely not.

It's interesting that you support looking into the original text, language, and I would even support a deeper understanding of Hebrew culture and history. There are mistranslations of the original Latin text for the New Testament, additives from other religions, and hidden cover-ups, and historical events that have a great deal of relevance to early Christianity. So much so, that it would certainly shake the faith of "true believers." This information is out there, it's perfectly able to be studied and verified, and it is also rigorously demonized and subdued by the Church for obvious reasons.

I am all for the adherent to Jesus' teachings and principles. It's great to have a worthy philosophy to guide your life. But if you still buy into the fairy tales and myths, you're not studying hard enough.

I’m sorry, but this is just completely wrong. That is the mindset of a brainwashed religious individual and an atheist who doesn’t understand, to think that we cannot question faith and the Bible. Without questioning, without trying to understand/identify issues within a set of statements, one learns nothing. And in the event that you aren’t able to come to a conclusion does not mean that the statement in question is false. There just isn’t enough data to determine one way or another, so instead of just “deciding” on a conclusion without adequate information, we should continue trying to further understand.

The data is there. It has been there for a long time. There are a multitude of issues. From God having sacrificial rituals of burnt meat in Genesis to thrones, streets and cities of gold and precious jewels with just 144,000 Jewish virgin men getting to kick it with God in Revelations. Take your pick. There's quite a bit to legitimately question. So much so that an atheist deciding to state that the Christian god doesn't exist isn't taking it on mere faith. Which was the point of all this in the first place.

 

[Bill]

Oh, I understand that. Completely. I's a shame. But consider this: So many atheists don't "question" religious folk out of a honest desire to understand or learn. They question with the intent to try and discourage and/or start arguments. Look at Bill's post above. His post wasn't a sincere question; it was an attempt to prove his position, which in turn lead to him actually insulting my ability to think for myself. This is how many atheists act they can be just as arrogant and self-assured as the religious people they complain about. Both sides are equally guilty of handling their and others' opinions poorly.

I used to debate with Christians on the subject of Evolution. I used to even ask them their opinion on it to get a better understanding of why they dismissed it. It was an interesting learning experience because it was a lesson on the ability to deny reality in order to support a particular mindset. I have read a great deal of material from Creationists covering that particular subject. I have studied that subject in science classes and on my own. I have gone out to the field and studied everything I could to get a better understanding, and even attempt to piece together some reasoning for why the other side dismisses the findings of science in this matter.

I have yet to see one single example of a Creationist properly stating Evolution along with a coherent and sound rebuttal. I have seen papers, essays, websites and books by Creationists, and every single one of them, from the layman to PhD's, get something, usually a lot of somethings, wrong. I'm not saying Evolution is perfect. I'm not saying that it explains everything. What I'm saying is that Creationists claim that it is incorrect and is not supported by evidence, yet not a single one of them can produce a coherent scientific paper that supports those claims.

I bring this up because I used to be Christian, but I had a healthy dose of skepticism, and I think that enabled me to break free of that mindset and be able to look at the subject as a whole without preconceived notions. I don't have a desire to believe in God, so there is no need for me to not take what I'm reading at face value. I don't belong to a church, so I am free to consider whatever sources of information that are relevant in finding the truth. But don't think that, and I've heard this one before, that atheists wish to dismiss God so they live as they wish. Most atheists are no less moral than any Christian who ever cracked open their Bible. We're just able to keep our Sundays free. And, more importantly, we can consider anything as possible because we don't adhere to a particular dogma. Even the existence of a god can be considered. I am an atheist. But if you, or your God, can show me proof, I'll do more than believe. I'll know. And knowledge trumps belief any day of the week.

I don't want a sign that is open to interpretation. I don't need an anecdote of someone's uncles, cousins, roommate. If God wants me to believe, then He has an open invitation to come and sit with me and discuss it. I figure if he's that perceptive, he'll understand why I don't want to take the word of ancient sheepherders or the millions of drones their word has produced. Is it such a big thing to ask of an all-powerful God? If faith has produced good works, imagine what knowledge could achieve.

 

[8wid]

Being religious, its my belief that homosexuality is a sin. But a sin no worse than any other sin that everyone in the world is guilty of. The argument that "i was born gay so its God who made me gay!" is a falsehood and an inaccurate statement on many levels (IMO):

1 - I believe that while God has his hand in many things, he would not "make" gay babies anymore than he would purposefully "make" an autistic child. The outcomes of reproduction is a roll of the dice, and I think people clamoring to put a "God's Will!" spin on every aspect of life is a flawed way of living...and 9 times out of 10, is only done to justify one's own prerogative.

2 - In some instances, yes, I do believe being gay (or should I say conducting oneself in a homosexual way) is a choice - (as a very shallow example, think of the two stereotypical college chicks who get drunk and make out/experiment for the hell of it). However, when it comes to legitimately gay people, while i personally am not a scientist who studies this, I haven't seen any proof that validates the idea that we can be "born gay" in the sense that being gay is a specifically genetic occurrence (note - if any one can refute that with studies, I'd be interested in learning more). How do you know if you're "born gay"? Are there tests? Are people claiming that sexual identity and attraction is existent in infants to prove this? My view on it is that its an incalculable amount of things - social conditioning, physiological differences, etc that is typically beyond conscious control (but again, I'm not holding this idea as fact, so please correct me with studies if you find this notion to be incorrect).

3 - God doesn't hate gays. God doesn't hate liars. God doesn't hate atheists. Technically, God should have "no" emotions since he is not human. When we say "God loves us" (or any other emotion), it is OUR way of expressing logic behind his words/actions in a way we as humans can understand and sympathize with. That being said, the bible says that "God is Love", and Jesus' whole message was to love one another regardless of who they were or what they did. So anyone who claims that God hates (insert any demographic here) is a moron and has not a shred of understanding of the faith they claim to have. (sorry, this misconception is something i'm very passionate about)

4 - Ill end with this: I believe that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals and should not be condemned for their way of living anymore than any one else. No one should be persecuted or have their liberties limited based on who they are or how they choose to live their lives, so long as the sanctity of life is not infringed upon. I don't judge gay people (I've even got a few gay friends, myself) anymore than I would judge anyone else on this globe (and I do my best to live a "judge-free" life).

Have you ever asked a homosexual when they found out when they had a different orientation? Obviously not. Everything in the universe no random how it appears is controlled by God according to the Bible, maybe he didn't think out of the blue of an idea to deliberately make someone gay in order to torture him or her, but he did leave a flawed creation that sins as part of their nature and consciously does so. It's not like a savant that can't comprehend most verbal language and cusses, there is often has no comprehension of what is really being put out, they are biologically packaged this way by direct or indirect divine creation and flawed by biblical definition.

 

[Saint]

I used to debate with Christians on the subject of Evolution. I used to even ask them their opinion on it to get a better understanding of why they dismissed it. It was an interesting learning experience because it was a lesson on the ability to deny reality in order to support a particular mindset. I have read a great deal of material from Creationists covering that particular subject. I have studied that subject in science classes and on my own. I have gone out to the field and studied everything I could to get a better understanding, and even attempt to piece together some reasoning for why the other side dismisses the findings of science in this matter.

I have yet to see one single example of a Creationist properly stating Evolution along with a coherent and sound rebuttal. I have seen papers, essays, websites and books by Creationists, and every single one of them, from the layman to PhD's, get something, usually a lot of somethings, wrong. I'm not saying Evolution is perfect. I'm not saying that it explains everything. What I'm saying is that Creationists claim that it is incorrect and is not supported by evidence, yet not a single one of them can produce a coherent scientific paper that supports those claims.

I bring this up because I used to be Christian, but I had a healthy dose of skepticism, and I think that enabled me to break free of that mindset and be able to look at the subject as a whole without preconceived notions. I don't have a desire to believe in God, so there is no need for me to not take what I'm reading at face value. I don't belong to a church, so I am free to consider whatever sources of information that are relevant in finding the truth. But don't think that, and I've heard this one before, that atheists wish to dismiss God so they live as they wish. Most atheists are no less moral than any Christian who ever cracked open their Bible. We're just able to keep our Sundays free. And, more importantly, we can consider anything as possible because we don't adhere to a particular dogma. Even the existence of a god can be considered. I am an atheist. But if you, or your God, can show me proof, I'll do more than believe. I'll know. And knowledge trumps belief any day of the week.

I don't want a sign that is open to interpretation. I don't need an anecdote of someone's uncles, cousins, roommate. If God wants me to believe, then He has an open invitation to come and sit with me and discuss it. I figure if he's that perceptive, he'll understand why I don't want to take the word of ancient sheepherders or the millions of drones their word has produced. Is it such a big thing to ask of an all-powerful God? If faith has produced good works, imagine what knowledge could achieve.

This is my favourite post.

 

[bunk]

I've heard repeatedly from believers, "nothing could ever prove to me there is no god." However, as a non-believer, I would think if God stuck is big god head down through the clouds and simultaneously spoke to all other non-believers, we would be forced to reconsider our views. So who's more opened minded? It would just take some extraordinary evidence.

 

[Bill]

I've heard repeatedly from believers, "nothing could ever prove to me there is no god." However, as a non-believer, I would think if God stuck is big god head down through the clouds and simultaneously spoke to all other non-believers, we would be forced to reconsider our views. So who's more opened minded? It would just take some extraordinary evidence.

This is an underlying principle that you deal with when debating religion. It's one of the reasons why I don't bother asking questions. I understand why they believe. Can we just debate it without panties getting in a bunch?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I've heard repeatedly from believers, "nothing could ever prove to me there is no god." However, as a non-believer, I would think if God stuck is big god head down through the clouds and simultaneously spoke to all other non-believers, we would be forced to reconsider our views. So who's more opened minded? It would just take some extraordinary evidence.

Personally if that happened, I'd assume I'd gone mad

 

[Manic]

I've heard repeatedly from believers, "nothing could ever prove to me there is no god." However, as a non-believer, I would think if God stuck is big god head down through the clouds and simultaneously spoke to all other non-believers, we would be forced to reconsider our views. So who's more opened minded? It would just take some extraordinary evidence.

I once had an odd conversation with a devout Catholic friend of mine about a movie he saw. I don't remember what movie it was, but I remember part of the plot that he described to me. He said it dealt with a man who discovered the skeletal remains of a man who fit the description of Jesus' corpse post-crucifixion, lying in a cave that was covered by a huge boulder. This discovery proved that Jesus didn't rise from the dead after his crucifixion (because then there wouldn't be any remains left behind), thus negating the whole of Christianity. The man who discovered this came into conflict with a deeply religious Christian man who wanted to stop news of this discovery from reaching the public.

The conversation got awkward when my friend said that if he was presented with the same discovery, he'd try to cover it up too because he didn't think he could handle his faith being proven so unarguably wrong. I don't think I ever talked to him about religion again after that.

 

[~fox~]

This is one of the arguments that led me, personally, to disbelieve in evolution: where did all this "new information/ genes" come from? If we all started from a single molecule with only one set of information, how do we have all these different animals, races of people?

A major problem for evolution, as mentioned above, is the huge increase in information content of organisms through time. Evolutionary theory accepts additions and deletions of information as evidence of evolution of a population. The problem is that through the history of life on earth, the information content of the genomes of organisms must have increased dramatically. Beginning with the most primitive form of life, we have a relatively simple genome compared to the genomes that we see today. Mutations are said to provide the fuel for the evolutionary engine. Virtually all observed mutations result in a loss in the information content of a genome. There would need to be some way to consistently add information to the genome to arrive at palm trees and people from a simple single-celled organism—the hypothetical common ancestor of all life on earth. Evolutionists have failed to answer the question, “Where did all the new information come from since mutations are known to reduce information?” You cannot expect evolution, which requires a net gain in information over millions of years, to occur as a result of mutation and natural selection. Natural selection, evolution’s supposed mechanism, causes a loss of information and can only act on traits that are already present!

Can someone with more expertise explain this to me? Yes, I do believe in God's Creation, but I truly want to learn more.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I once had an odd conversation with a devout Catholic friend of mine about a movie he saw. I don't remember what movie it was, but I remember part of the plot that he described to me. He said it dealt with a man who discovered the skeletal remains of a man who fit the description of Jesus' corpse post-crucifixion, lying in a cave that was covered by a huge boulder. This discovery proved that Jesus didn't rise from the dead after his crucifixion (because then there wouldn't be any remains left behind), thus negating the whole of Christianity. The man who discovered this came into conflict with a deeply religious Christian man who wanted to stop news of this discovery from reaching the public.

The conversation got awkward when my friend said that if he was presented with the same discovery, he'd try to cover it up too because he didn't think he could handle his faith being proven so unarguably wrong. I don't think I ever talked to him about religion again after that.

Wow, that's actually quite interesting.

I feel for you tho. My best friend converted to Islam 3 years back, and in the early stages we had one conversation in which she was trying to gently explain to me her new beliefs... all of which basically lead to us both being confronted with the fact she now thought I was going to burn in hell because I wasn't a Muslim...

Safe to say it's not really been the same since, and has been one of the reasons i've become a lot more vocal about my atheism...

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

There is no real difference between a religious nut and an atheist in reality.Neither one will shut up about what they believe in and how much better off they are because of it. yes I am saying that a hardcore atheists religion is preaching and believing in "not believing" for xy reason.

In my own and very humble opinion, people can believe what they want and others should respect that as long as their beliefs are not physically harmful to others.

People will usually say that science is there to disprove any type of religious being and there is an incredible level of logic and fact to that. At the same time, the level of coincidence and perfection for our millions of natural systems to work and allow us to exist and think is so high and unique that one has to wonder about the posibility of the existance of a superior system willingly pushing for these incredible coincidences to perfectly fit. There is no end to this argument. Enjoy your life and believe in what you want to believe.

 

[Bill]

This is one of the arguments that led me, personally, to disbelieve in evolution: where did all this "new information/ genes" come from? If we all started from a single molecule with only one set of information, how do we have all these different animals, races of people?



Can someone with more expertise explain this to me? Yes, I do believe in God's Creation, but I truly want to learn more.

Usually through gene duplication is new information added and the genome made larger, then point mutations refine it. Also, not all mutations are harmful or even neutral.

Read this article.

I'm sure a field biologist or geneticist could explain it better with specific examples.

 

[Bill]

There is no real difference between a religious nut and an atheist in reality.Neither one will shut up about what they believe in and how much better off they are because of it. yes I am saying that a hardcore atheists religion is preaching and believing in "not believing" for xy reason.

In my own and very humble opinion, people can believe what they want and others should respect that as long as their beliefs are not physically harmful to others.

People will usually say that science is there to disprove any type of religious being and there is an incredible level of logic and fact to that. At the same time, the level of coincidence and perfection for our millions of natural systems to work and allow us to exist and think is so high and unique that one has to wonder about the posibility of the existance of a superior system willingly pushing for these incredible coincidences to perfectly fit. There is no end to this argument. Enjoy your life and believe in what you want to believe.

We're not nearly as complex and our "millions of natural systems" don't work as cohesive as you'd like to suggest. If a "superior system" is guiding it, then it needs to do a better job.

You can trace most every trait we have in other organisms from it's most simplest form to some that are superior to ours. There is nothing all that spectacular about how it came together. The only thing one has to wonder about is why some don't bother learning about Evolutionary Biology which explains how all those "incredible coincidences" manage to fit together instead of making an argument from incredulity.

 

[Dr.]

This is one of the arguments that led me, personally, to disbelieve in evolution: where did all this "new information/ genes" come from? If we all started from a single molecule with only one set of information, how do we have all these different animals, races of people?
...

Can someone with more expertise explain this to me? Yes, I do believe in God's Creation, but I truly want to learn more.

I think some of the traction on this arises from ambiguity of meaning. What is complexity? What is information? – particularly as it relates to the genetic code.

As mentioned, a mutation that instructs for a novel duplication is one way to increase complexity. Alternately, there are clear cases where two separate entities (molecules or other structures) have physically joined up – thus increasing net complexity. The ancestors of mitochondria, for example, were once free bacteria. But at some point in the distant past, they took up residence inside cells. The arrangement was symbiotic - mutually beneficial. And the result was an increase in the “information” content of the cell. Except… you could take a contrarian, Creationist view that no new “information” has actually emerged because the cells were merely taking advantage of what the bacteria/mitochondria were already doing. To my mind, that’s a strained, self-serving definition of “information” and complexity.

To get a proper handle on the terms, you’d really need to read up on information theory. TalkOrigins has a section on it. But the linked articles that are cited are somewhat technical.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

It’s curious that, for you, information theory is a sticking point – upon which you’re suspicious of evolution. So you’re okay with the fossil record, geographic distribution of species, lab experiments that document beneficial mutations, artificial selection as a subset of natural selection and radiometric and astronomical dating techniques?

 

[redhawk23]

Also it should be noted that while single celled organisms reproduce asexually, the copies are not always perfect, things are added, lost or changed in the process every so often, and when you have millions of cells reproducing exponentially, there are plenty of chances. Imagine xeroxing a sucession of copies millions of times a day. At the end of the day compare the latest copy of a copy of a copy to the original. Though its a copy there will be differences, slight though they may be. Also while they reproduce through mitosis, some single celled organisms, bacteria for example can exchange genetic information in the form of little rings of genetic code, I forget exactly what they are called. In this way different varieties of code are exchanged. Certain organisms will end up with a variety of different combinations, some which may be benefitial or even absolutely necessary for continued survival.

 

[GhostPoet]

Consideringthe percentage of chacne of the Big Bang happening and forming all life is barely even a number it's so small...I think it takes more faith to be an athiest than it does to be of any form of religion. A belief in theory, often times not based on any firm facts or proofs. One could say that Atheism in itself is a religion of a sort.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Consideringthe percentage of chacne of the Big Bang happening and forming all life is barely even a number it's so small...

What is the percentage? Who determines what that percentage is? Who determines the criteria on which the percentage is based? You? Other self-serving theists who construct similar vague and dishonest statements? Also, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the formation of life, but with the formation of the universe.

I think it takes more faith to be an athiest than it does to be of any form of religion.

Faith does not even apply to atheism at its most basic. It is a disbelief in a god or gods, nothing else. One does not even have to believe in the Big Bang or even anything remotely scientific to be an atheist. However, I will say that people usually come to that conclusion by way of an education, diligence, and critical thinking. I can't really think of anything more intellectually lazy than to assume that God did everything simply because you can't fathom how it happened.

It is as if you go to a magic show and, not knowing how the magician achieves the illusion, assume that he/she really does have magical powers. Instead of investigating, studying sleight of hand, learning how optical illusions can be produced with mirrors and extremely thin string, etc., you just leave it at that and go around thinking that people have magical abilities for the rest of your life.

A belief in theory, often times not based on any firm facts or proofs.

Do you know what empirical data is? It's what scientific theory is based on. It's not as if there's a scientist somewhere going "HUZZAH! I'll come up with a story of the universe's origin that has nothing to do with God, and because I'm a scientist, people will believe me!"

One could say that Atheism in itself is a religion of a sort.

One could, but that would make one an idiot.

religion -

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


atheism -

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It's the equivalent of saying that a lack of belief in leprechauns is its own kind of superstition. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dr.]

One could say that Atheism in itself is a religion of a sort.

If atheism is a religion... then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[SuperFerret]

I must ask, why must something be perfect if it is guided by a superior being of some sort?

And atheism isn't a religion, though hard core atheists can be just as belligerent and close-minded as any hard core religious people to the point where the distinction is just different flavor of *******. Science has many traits in common with religion though. *cue fifty page debate and responses along the lines of "but in science I can find X out for myself"*

 

[obin_gam]

It is as if you go to a magic show and, not knowing how the magician achieves the illusion, assume that he/she really does have magical powers. Instead of investigating, studying sleight of hand, learning how optical illusions can be produced with mirrors and extremely thin string, etc., you just leave it at that and go around thinking that people have magical abilities for the rest of your life.

Greatly put!

 

[ALP]

Or you can just be like me, appreciate the magic show for what it is and leave it like that. I'm not searching online to find out how Criss Angel does his tricks

No but really, I'd say I'm in the boat with the majority. I accept evolution and trust the scientists but don't really know the technicalities of it all. I'd like to learn more about it but in my last biology class the teacher was telling us about all that delicious prebiotic soup but then I drifted off into my own black hole.

I once had an odd conversation with a devout Catholic friend of mine about a movie he saw. I don't remember what movie it was, but I remember part of the plot that he described to me. He said it dealt with a man who discovered the skeletal remains of a man who fit the description of Jesus' corpse post-crucifixion, lying in a cave that was covered by a huge boulder. This discovery proved that Jesus didn't rise from the dead after his crucifixion (because then there wouldn't be any remains left behind), thus negating the whole of Christianity. The man who discovered this came into conflict with a deeply religious Christian man who wanted to stop news of this discovery from reaching the public.

The conversation got awkward when my friend said that if he was presented with the same discovery, he'd try to cover it up too because he didn't think he could handle his faith being proven so unarguably wrong. I don't think I ever talked to him about religion again after that.

You basically just described the Asylum's version of The Da Vinci Code.

 

[bunk]

If atheism is a religion... then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

And bald is a hairstyle.