Gramsci wrote: ...
As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt in 30 years ...

Then surely you have proof...let's hear it...

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote: ...
As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt in 30 years ...

Then surely you have proof...let's hear it...

Ooooh. This is gettin' good..........

The Waxman Cometh!!

matthew wrote: However I would rephrase it to state that a person ought not assert pure science to answer a question when the answer can only be provided by reference to sacred tradition and divine revelation, and in turn not assert thinking based on a notion of divine revelation when science can provide a reasonable answer.

You don't know the phone number of the pizza place down the street. The scientist suggests that you look in the book where such things are printed for that reason. You could certainly have the number divinely revealed to you. I challenge you to pray-up this number.
(EDIT: for clarity)

My point being that unless you knew phone books existed, you might think the only way to know that number was to have it revealed to you by a loving God. Your position is that things as-yet-unproved-to-your-satisfaction-by science are in the realm of the divine. I say nothing is except those things attached to the belief in the divine.

Until we found fossils of our ancestors, the only answer to the question "where did we come from" was "God made us, as was revealed in scripture." Now that we know more, that question is no longer in the realm of revealed answers. Either the revelatory method is valid, and things once true are always true, or it is not, and true things are gradually discovered and proven as our knowledge increases.

I think the latter makes more sense.

As a quick aside, I always thought that the people at the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence might have an easier and more productive go at searching instead for terrestrial lack of intelligence.

Say, I wonder what all these ID supporters think about the wide coverage given to the Bird Flu, and the fear of its mutating (i.e., evolving).

EVOLUTION KILLS, PEOPLE.

-Mike

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote: ...
As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt in 30 years ...

Then surely you have proof...let's hear it...

Proof that I haven't had a doubt or proof that I don't believe something?

Tisk, tisk Phil. You should be smart enough to realise that proving a negative is impossible, how can I prove a lack of belief? Atheism isn't a "belief", it's the absence of belief. The burden of proof is not on me prove anything, because I am not proposing that anything exists.

The basis of your points always seem to fall back on a "but how can we know anything" angle. Which is fine, brain and a jar, evil demon and co. are all very nice, but pretty much philosophy 101. All you've added to these discussions is this and for some reason you think that Christians deserve respect based on them being Christians, not their individual actions.

You've very good at putting up questions, but so far haven't answered any of my questions. You just pose more questions... you shouldn't confuse that with rigorous debate.

leftwing wrote:
EVOLUTION KILLS, PEOPLE.

-Mike

So does life Mike, one day it has to end... Sorry about that.

leftwing wrote:As a quick aside, I always thought that the people at the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence might have an easier and more productive go at searching instead for terrestrial lack of intelligence.

That would be a rather quick endeavor.

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote: ...
As a life long atheist without a single second of doubt in 30 years ...

Then surely you have proof...let's hear it...

Oh! And I liked you!

Do you seriously believe in everything you can't prove doesn't exist? That's a lot of stuff to believe in!

The "money quote" for me on atheism runs something like this:

I contend that you and I are both atheists, that I only believe in one fewer god than you do, and that when you understand why you choose not to believe in all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I choose not to believe in yours.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

I contend that you and I are both atheists, that I only believe in one fewer god than you do, and that when you understand why you choose not to believe in all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I choose not to believe in yours.

I love you, seriously.

Are you a women?

Gramsci wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

I contend that you and I are both atheists, that I only believe in one fewer god than you do, and that when you understand why you choose not to believe in all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I choose not to believe in yours.

I love you, seriously.

Are you a women?

Cold check the new avatar! Those aren't lady 'burns!

But! I love you too, bro!


ETA: I should mention that the quote is not original with me. I have seen it worded various ways, and variously attributed, so I can't really give credit where it's due, but it's not due me.