"Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play". I wish Billy Scheers would impart his wisdom on me. Until such time I guess I'll just get by with a little help from my friends.

Mitch...

I agree with you on the fact that aetheism is a faith position... though belief without evidence being a standard for faith would imply that it's faith to believe that we all aren't made up of tiny little blue dots... There is no evidence that we are, nor is the sufficient evidence we're not, meaning, anything that cannot be disproven is not faith to believe it is nevertheless untrue.

I have disagreed with my aetheist brother though that there is at least one point of evidence that causes aetheism to be faith. Specifically, laws of entropy (btw I did actually manage to think of part of this - which wasn't rocket science - and then read Hawking) anyway - laws of entropy define that no random act will take place without a catalyst, essentially, factors in disunion trend to union, factors in union trend to disunion, but this is a mathematical progression. The known universe is (if you accept science) roughly 14 billion years old, the second law of thermodynamics says we cannot be a repeating universe because we are in fact losing heat, so the universe is a singularity, and was once black matter and only black matter. So entropy requires that some external action had to be introduced to change black matter to energy, and in fact, at such a cataclysmic rate that it created normal matter - a very impressive feat when you consider all matter in the universe was created in that very breif period of time. This could not happen without outside action - external to the universe. Now we don't know what it was, we can't say it was an omniscient being seeking to set man as the titular head of creation, but we can say it was an outside our universe force with the ability to both shape massively the events that occured and the physical laws under which they occured.. which sounds a bit like God.

The point is, aetheism has no explanation, it just believes this cannot be a divine fact/feat. This is faith.

Btw, my brother is not depressing, nor are most aetheists I know, you need to get out more. Most are pretty intelligent people who question organized religion because much of organized religion has been so shabbily used for bad things, and thus, they question divinity when it is pitted against known science by ostrich brained Bible thumpers. It's hard to befriend folks who believe the world is flat, or at least to take thier opinions seriously. One suggested to me that "it's bad science" to believe the world is more than 15,000 years old, after all, evolution is a "theory" goes the rant. Well, yes, it's a theory because NO evidence given credence disproves it, that's the nature of scientific process. The stretch is saying that "intelligent design" is a theory, when there is ample evidence of flaws in the "design," unless you think God messed up on purpose. Saying complexity proves divinity is a statement of faith, not science. Complexity only proves complexity. I can chose to believe (and do) that the complexity, far beyond the fact that there are 17 words for ice in Inuit tongue, in fact extending to string theory, is too great a marker of a cohesive intent, and also believe that the pattern allows for experimentation and adaption (i.e. darwinism) in fact that darwinism IS the pattern. Evolution and Intelligent Design only fail to come into conflict IF you believe that the design is an evolving one. If instead you believe that it is a static, and moreseo, perfect order, you are sticking stictly with faith, and denying real science, and this is ostrich headedness.

So, yep, I'll take the people who accept that electricity exists even though we can't see it, over those who say have you ever SEEN anything evolve (which of course we have - viruses).

PB

Good God, I just read the drivel in that article..

First, you CANT prove a negative.. it's like proving you aren't homeless... what moron wrote this story.

Second, he aims his attacks at a hypothetical person who I've never met, nor even come close to meeting. This smug Professor does not exist, or at least, is so rare as to only be a boogey man for you all to hate. Almost every aetheist I've ever met, and I've met LOTS, agrees that their view is just a view, they are pretty certain of their view, but they don't hold contempt for religion, they hold contempt for those who deny science. They sure as hell don't hate it, I've never met one, not once. You all may have, send me a name sometime. I won't ask them to prove God doesn't exist, that's rhetorical Bullcrap, I'll ask them to explain the origin of the universe without presenting an outside influence, then I'll ask them to explain Grace.

But then, I'll ask each of you to define the purpose of Grace. Is Grace to make us grateful? If so, God certainly could simply stamp a big sign saying, I'm here, be grateful I don't let you all die like you deserve. Is it to make us wander around in awe, well, the Earth is AWESOME, so consider me thunderstruck, but somehow I think maybe it went beyond that. No, Grace is the statement that each of you is NO better than any other, each of you failed the bridge, accept your own humanity, frailty, failing, accept you are NO better, and maybe you'll figure out, someday, that if you are no better, it's just not okay to hurt/kill/steal from others. This is my gift to you, I give you the gift of forgiveness as an example of how you can make heaven exist for you, for eternity.

I find it ironic to read drivel like this article that so actively preaches spite, who presumably agrees with Grace, and forgiveness, and not being better than anyone else. Hypocrisy on my part, maybe, but then again, I've been pretty consistent at saying "look in the mirror."

PB

If atheism is a religion, then I guess failure to collect stamps is a hobby too, huh?

News flash: not everything is about your beloved God.

"If atheism is a religion, then I guess failure to collect stamps is a hobby too, huh?"

If failure to collect stamps requires one to accept certain empirically-untestable assumptions about the universe's stampiness or lack of it, then I suppose it is.

You sound more like an agstapmic.

If you want to read a very good book about science and "Intelligent Design" I recommend The Hidden Face of God by Gerald Schroeder. He looks at astronomy, physics and biology and estimates mathmatical probabilities of coincidence on specifics. And it's readable.

Smug Professor?!

PZ Meyers..It's PZ Meyers youuu seek!

Korean:scaffoldings incompressible squid cocktail bitternut!disambiguation suit wanderer

hitchhike leisure hedged.agglutinating trances.prayed machines sings