A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[muhammad_isa]

There is no comfort..

Then why should you believe that others find comfort .. but not you?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

There is no comfort in any idea related to any of the many gods humans believe all over the planet. I work to avoid needing illusions to hide from life's real challenges, and face them without any emotional crutch.

The question is why you need a crutch, and can't think through your own moral attitudes and defer to what some religion says. Ultimately it's you deciding the religion is correct, so you might as well abandon the religion and think for yourself without using God to hide behind.

I can't think of anything more liberating than ultimately realizing that I don't need to believe in God and adhere to Christianity or any other god or religion to feel emotionally whole or to make moral decisions in my life. I believe that once a devoutly religious person realizes this, it could be the best decision that they've ever made for their mental health and emotional well-being. It was certainly true for me, and I feel like it could be that way for other people who are emotionally dependent on their religion as well. However, I know from personal experience that it takes a great deal of courage to first recognize that you don't need to believe in God and adhere to a religion and then accept it in your own life. I will say that it was very difficult for me to overcome all of the Christian indoctrination that I had been subjected to throughout my life, but it was certainly well worth the struggle and heartache. I don't regret it.

 

[F1fan]

Then why should you believe that others find comfort .. but not you?

Because even believers have a sense it’s an illusion, and that itself causes anxiety. What is the solution? Deeper investment into the illusion until it’s believed to be reality.

Can’t blame a believer for occasional doubt and the courage to abandon belief.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can’t blame a believer for occasional doubt..

Obviously not..
..there are plenty of people trying to mislead them away from their perceived reality.

 

[F1fan]

Obviously not..
..there are plenty of people trying to mislead them away from their perceived reality.

So you prefer your "perceived reality" over actual reality.

 

[F1fan]

No .. the question is why you are against people believing in G-d.

I asked you why you need a crutch and instead of answering you get defensive. You didn't deny needing an emotional crutch, or explain why you need one. More secrets.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thousands of mutually exclusive religion.
Even more denominations between them.

All of which claim to have "exceptional evidence". None of which agree with eachother.

You can't all be right.
But you can all be wrong.
And considering the common baseline of appeal to such "exceptional evidence", without any cross agreement, it seems incredibly likely that in fact you are all wrong.

Except for their own religion, I think Baha'is can agree with that. I don't think there is one religion or one denomination of any religion that the Baha'is could say that they think their beliefs and practices are correct, and they have the truth.

Catholics? Any of the Protestant sects? Any Jewish sect? Any Islamic sect? And Atheists would agree with them. The only difference is that Atheists include the Baha'i Faith as well.

The arguments against religion are the believers themselves.

So, if it's true that Baha'i don't stand up for and count any religion or sect within a religion as having the truth, then what about the people in those religions? They think they have The Truth. They are told they have The Truth. They are told that they have evidence to support their beliefs, but Baha'is and Atheists agree, they don't.

One of the things that blows it for me about the claims of the Baha'i Faith, and puts them into the same category with all the other religions, is that Baha'is claim that all those major religions, at one time, were true... that there was some mysterious, nowhere to be found "original" teachings that were true. But then each and every religion either lost them or corrupted them. Even with Islam, the Baha'is say that the Quran is true and accurate, yet the Muslims still found ways to misinterpret it and incorporate wrong practices and beliefs.

For Baha'is, that leaves only one true religion that has not been corrupted and has its original Scriptures and has not misinterpreted its Scriptures... and that is them, the Baha'is. How do we know that's true? It takes "faith" that the God described in the Baha'i writings is real. Why believe that? Just because it says so? And then that their prophet was sent by that God. Gotta show that their God is real first, and then show how their prophet is real. It all depends on believing what the Baha'i writings say.

 

[CG Didymus]

I asked you why you need a crutch and instead of answering you get defensive. You didn't deny needing an emotional crutch, or explain why you need one. More secrets.

We all need a crutch sometimes. Someone or something we can lean on for support. But it has to be real and dependable. Does God come through for everyone? Does God come through all the time?

There are athletes that give praise to their God when they win, but what about when they lose? Parents praise God that their child wasn't shot to death by some mass-murderer. But what about the parents of those kids that were killed? A family in Ukraine can praise God the Russian missile missed their apartment building. But what about the family in the building that got destroyed?

What answer can believers give? God does what God wants? Or that in the long-term, God had a good reason.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then why should you believe that others find comfort .. but not you?

Some people can convince themselves that black is white, up is down, unbelievable is believable, in the name of comfort over truth.

Others cannot. The heart can never accept what the mind rejects.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because even believers have a sense it’s an illusion, and that itself causes anxiety. What is the solution? Deeper investment into the illusion until it’s believed to be reality.

Can’t blame a believer for occasional doubt and the courage to abandon belief.

I would say that the True believers (few and far between, but they exist) accept the possibility that they're wrong, acknowledge the absurdity of the belief, but proceed anyway.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Some people can convince themselves that black is white, up is down, unbelievable is believable, in the name of comfort over truth..

It has little to do with "comfort" .. and more to do with morality and truth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It has little to do with "comfort" .. and more to do with morality and truth.

And the Truth is that many people honestly believe in a higher power, others choose to believe because it gives them comfort to do so, while still others cannot force themselves to believe something that their minds tell them is utter nonsense.

 

[F1fan]

We all need a crutch sometimes. Someone or something we can lean on for support. But it has to be real and dependable. Does God come through for everyone? Does God come through all the time?

Right, if we need support we have family and friends, and even the religious are aware they need actual help from actual people since their God is unreliable and can't be relied on for the miracle being prayed for. Your kid has cancer? You can pray but you will still take the kid to a hospoital for treatment, and even then there's no guarantee of survival.

There are athletes that give praise to their God when they win, but what about when they lose? Parents praise God that their child wasn't shot to death by some mass-murderer. But what about the parents of those kids that were killed? A family in Ukraine can praise God the Russian missile missed their apartment building. But what about the family in the building that got destroyed?

Exactly, God is unreliable, and ultimately anything in life comes from what humans do. God is the emotional crutch to help a believer cope and process reality. Not all folks need this model of thought and belief.

What answer can believers give? God does what God wants? Or that in the long-term, God had a good reason.

They have no choice but to waffle and make excuses for an absent and ineffective God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They have no choice but to waffle and make excuses for an absent and ineffective God.

A believer has faith, and believes that what might happen to them in this life, is not
the b all and end all.
Believers put their trust in G-d, and hope for a more fulfilling life after death.

Atheists do not have hope in life after death, and desire everything right now.

 

[setarcos]

This is a typical religious gripe.

How does that effect its being true? Are you saying atheists don't have "typical gripe"? Like always getting their cart before their horse or in many cases forgetting the cart all together by criticizing but offering no argument in support.
There's no evidence, your given evidence, you ignore it and around we go.

Atheists tend to be skilled thinkers and the method means following the rules of logic and debate.

This sentence isn't even a good testimony to its own presumptions. Its a logical fallacy.
If your going to criticize theists for being illogical then It might behoove you not to be illogical yourself.
Its a kind of token endorsement fallacy....Atheists say they follow the rules of logic so atheists tend to be skilled thinkers.
Its also an implied Ad hominem argument fallacy against theists.
Perhaps its even a confirmation bias fallacy.

In no case are ideas supposed to be treated as true, and then evidence searched for in support of it. Even in law defendants are presumed innocent and guilt is affirmed with evidence.

Um....I'll let you figure out where you've made a logical fallacy here.
I'll give you a hint...Defendants are innocent regardless of existent evidential proof until proven otherwise with evidence.
You seem to have argued against your own proposition here.

That's what happens when you lack evidence and a coherent argument.

Or perhaps that's what happens when you didn't understand the coherent argument and you ignore the evidence.

Attempting to muddle the discussion by smuggling in the word faith. That's also a common religious tactic.

It only muddles the discussion if you don't understand the argument. You seem to quite often criticize religion by referring to what they say as common tactics of or typical gripes of as if that's supposed to support your position. If that's the case there's another logical fallacy.
Why don't you just stick with debating, you'll get further. Complaints and insulting criticisms are usually diversionary tactics for those who don't want to or can't actually understand the other sides arguments.

if you need to use tricky language then you have awareness of lacking adequate and substantive evidence for your beliefs.

Tricky language? What about that quote was tricky?
Again...a criticism with no supporting argument.
Your tactics seem to be more emotional than reasonable. A poor emotional attitude is not very conducive to finding the truth of a matter.
Tell me what in that quote was tricky for you and I'll try to walk you through what I meant. Perhaps the words I used weren't the best for conveying the information I meant to.

What is potential evidence? It certainly isn't actual evidence.

I used potential to indicate that further understanding of the evidence or the particular phenomenon it may be presumed evidence of may end up precluding that evidence from being associated with that particular phenomenon which some may consider that evidence of.
Evidence itself has to be interpreted to degrees and understanding of phenomenon may change.

In the end you still need evidence. Theists don't have it.

This is what I mean by atheists either changing up the goal posts or ignoring what's been offered.
I gave you several sources of evidences but instead of asking questions or debating the evidence - how for instance information theory and DNA are evidences of intelligent design - you simply ignore it and move on.

None of this is factual. You are just making accusations and offer no evidence.

I'm seriously wondering if you are out of your depth here. You keep parroting the same thing without consideration of what's been offered. You have to actually think about what's being said. All the data I refer to is factual.
My opinions on the matter may not be true opinions but all the data is factual.

Intelligent design is deliberate fraud. It isn't science.

This is an emotional response. Another criticism without supporting evidences that I may respond to.

Another unfounded accusation.

Oh you founded the accusation. You founded its accuracy pretty good by offering no discussion about the evidences offered previously.

This is projection of what some disingenuous believers do in religious debate as a means to confuse terms, like the word faith, which has numerous meanings. These debates are always a case of believers having to argue for their fantastic beliefs, and sometimes use tricks to get out of sticky situations.

What are you talking about?? I would know but your not offering any supporting arguments which I may debate, let alone try to understand. I try to get you to discuss the issues with me but 99% of the time you offer nothing but unsupported criticism while ignoring my counterarguments.
Didn't you say earlier here that atheists were good logicians and debaters? I'm not seeing that here. Did I incorrectly use the word faith? Interpretation is an act of faith. Faith is foundational to science. Theories can be proven wrong. The nature of our theories are such that they cannot be proven since they can potentially be proven wrong ipso facto faith is foundational to science. What about that don't you understand?

Which atheists, and what rules?

Apparently most of them, certainly you.
The rules of logical analysis of presented evidences.
For instance, atheists tend to criticize theists for having beliefs without proof while at the same time claiming they have no beliefs of their own, I suppose in order to have to avoid having to prove anything of their own which they can't.

I have shown that it is logically impossible for engaged atheists to not have relevant beliefs of their own when approaching this subject matter. The word itself means anti - theism. You can't be anti anything without a belief on which to found what your against. Yet atheists would have us believe that they themselves belief nothing and argue nothing and have to do nothing to prove nothing...nothing that is but criticize theists for having beliefs with what they consider to be evidence.

Atheists seem to be horrible at following their own demands. For instance, a demand for proof when its already been established - and by the scientific community no less - that nothing can be absolutely proven.
Atheists generally like to parrot that no evidence has been presented yet evidence has been presented. Its just ignored or interpreted in an atheistic flavor as if the evidence itself has become proof that its not an evidence of God.
Atheists also seem to tend to equate evidences of intelligent design with proofs of intelligent design so that knowing we can't prove intelligent design many atheists act as if that must mean there isn't evidence of intelligent design.
I've asked this before and have yet to get a good answer. What would be good enough evidence for you to believe in intelligent design? Can you give me a theoretical discovery that proves intelligent design to you or even just a hint at what evidence would convince you that its more probably evidence of intelligent design than not? I mean, after all, if your gonna criticize lack of evidence or evidences presented as not being evidence then you must have some kind of solid idea of what evidence would convince you. Don't just give me the criteria it must fulfill give me a theoretical discovery that would fit the criteria.

All you have to do is learn what science reports. That explains what we understand of how things are.

?? And? Its already, well established that science is limited in its ability to explain all aspects of reality. And even in many cases it can explain how a phenomena happens but not why it happens that way. Quantum fields, entanglement, charges, even what energy actually is as apposed to does.
There's more to reality than sciences ability to show us. That's an established fact.

Good for you acknowledging there are no creators known to exist.

? Known in this case is "proven". Evidences, perhaps. Proof no. Kind of like there are no proofs that macroevolution has actually taken place.

Would you say children developing cancers and dying is a designed function?

No more than I'd say its designed into every vehicle nowadays to protect the driver from a crash because its designed into that vehicle to actually crash.

what is this function, and why target children? If the creator is moral, explain the morality of torturing chldren before they die in pain.

Your making logical fallacies here. Your assuming children have been targeted and that a moral creator considers torturing children moral.

Following facts and data is not arrogance.

No, it isn't. But that's not what I said. A man is arrogant if he thinks he has it all figured out and then uses that as an excuse to disregard some aspects of reality simply because it doesn't fit with what he thinks he's got all figured out. Then along comes an anomaly to kick him in the bottom side.

Arrogance is religious people who think their religious assumptions are superior to what science can reveal about the universe.

I agree with you if you think there are arrogant religious people, especially if they somehow think that religious assumptions trump scientific revelation. They apparently don't realize that comparing apples to oranges and expecting similar results will not happen.
Science is a tool for understanding the workings of creation. Science can't be used to understand all of reality though. That is a scientific fact.
Religion is reaction to that portion of reality whos workings remain unrevealed by science but still effects the human experience of reality. There is a portion of religion that overlaps with science. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

 

[setarcos]

Religious believers don't have facts to offer, so the assumptions are irrelevant.

Religious believers don't have facts to offer, so the assumptions are irrelevant.

Religion itself is a fact...unexplained by science to date. It’s not so readily apparent how natural evolution gave rise to religions in the first place for instance. It’s pretty much been shown now that our ancient ancestors weren't retards. There's not much evidence that shows that they just looked at unknowns and created gods as explanations. Early humans would have been practical humans concerned with survival rather than creating fantastical explanations for phenomenon they've experienced. Why would they see lightning and think the gods must be angry? Why would they have a good hunt and think the gods must be happy with them? Why would they think to pray to gods or make sacrifices to them to get healthy if they were sick? Why would they think to create the concept of a god as an explanation to anything? Fertility, creation, prosperity, famine, health, disease, none of these things would have been apparently correlated to supernatural beings. Unless....perhaps something happened in prehistory we are missing. What we do know is that early humans started keeping track of what was correlated to their activity...the movement of stars, the seasons, food that helped heal, the best places to find game. But the early discoveries show nothing to do with god/gods favor or disfavor.
The big bang is a fact, predicted by genesis thousands of years before humans thought to question the infinite existence of the universe - that it actually has a beginning.
It’s a fact that millions of people around the globe have experiences that science cannot explain. There are anomalous facts throughout the sciences that science simply ignores or shelves for later consideration.
It’s a fact that this universe has been unimaginably fine-tuned to be suitable to human existence.
It’s a fact that throughout nature we find evidences of design.
It’s a fact that science hasn't explained how the specific information contained within DNA got there without design.
Facts, facts, facts, data, and evidence, what will you accept, what will you dismiss and why?

Well, find some facts, and make sure your search isn't tainted by your religious beliefs, as that would be bias.

Facts have been offered. You just see facts tainted by religious belief and bias but you fail to acknowledge your own bias in how you view those facts.

Facts may be evidence for, but they're not proof of and that's enough for atheists to deny God. If God popped in tomorrow and said here I am bow down and worship me and live forever it wouldn't be much of a testimony of who you are as a human being but only of what you want regardless of how. God wants willing glorification not selfish supplication for personal gain. Gods leaving open the question of its existence testifies to the true believers hope in a good and just future for its own sake not because it’s been proven to exist. Because it is good and just not because they may gain some immediate or future benefits that may or may not happen. Their faith testifies to who they are.

 

[F1fan]

How does that effect its being true?

You wrote "And yet atheists use a lack of proof as proof of lack." and atheists are correct because they are following the rules of logic and debate. Theists want to assume their religious beliefs are true, and that the lack of evidence is irrelevant to them somehow deciding the fantastic supernatural ideas are true. Logic doesn;t work this way. the logical default is that ideas are by default untrue, and there has to be evidence presented to demonstrate they are true. If a claimant can't present evidence then the clain/belief is dismissed.

It's fine if believers want to assume their ideas are true and evidence is irrelevant, but if you are going to debate with others you need to follow the rules of discourse.

Are you saying atheists don't have "typical gripe"?

If they have any common gripe it is probably the prevalence of religion in politics in the USA by the far right.

Like always getting their cart before their horse or in many cases forgetting the cart all together by criticizing but offering no argument in support.
There's no evidence, your given evidence, you ignore it and around we go.

Just follow the rules of discourse if you want to debate these issures.

This sentence isn't even a good testimony to its own presumptions. Its a logical fallacy.

I wrote "Atheists tend to be skilled thinkers and the method means following the rules of logic and debate." Where is the fallacy? It is an observation, not a claim or argument.

If your going to criticize theists for being illogical then It might behoove you not to be illogical yourself.
Its a kind of token endorsement fallacy....Atheists say they follow the rules of logic so atheists tend to be skilled thinkers.
Its also an implied Ad hominem argument fallacy against theists.
Perhaps its even a confirmation bias fallacy.

It's an observation, and you are not even clear what fallacy you accuse me of making. Do you not see how your reply here actually supports what I stated? You don't understand fallacies. This isn't criticism, it's observing your own writing.

Or perhaps that's what happens when you didn't understand the coherent argument and you ignore the evidence.

So far you aren't showing much competency.

It only muddles the discussion if you don't understand the argument. You seem to quite often criticize religion by referring to what they say as common tactics of or typical gripes of as if that's supposed to support your position. If that's the case there's another logical fallacy.
Why don't you just stick with debating, you'll get further. Complaints and insulting criticisms are usually diversionary tactics for those who don't want to or can't actually understand the other sides arguments.

Look how you are complaining about the debate and not clarifying your position.

Tricky language? What about that quote was tricky?
Again...a criticism with no supporting argument.
Your tactics seem to be more emotional than reasonable. A poor emotional attitude is not very conducive to finding the truth of a matter.
Tell me what in that quote was tricky for you and I'll try to walk you through what I meant. Perhaps the words I used weren't the best for conveying the information I meant to.

Using the word "faith" is one of numerous wrods with dual meanings that believers try to introduce into debates and then swap definitions. For example there is a mundane definition of faith, in that we have faith in the police that they will do their jobs. Or we have faith in a friend who is trying to stop smoking. This is mundane trust in real people with real effects that might be borne out or not. We have faith in our friend but he just doesn't have the will power to kick the habit. I have seen theists try to claim that their faith in God is the same. And then by extension they have faith that God exists. But faith is a being not known to exist is different than faith is real beings, like cops and friends. Using faith to justify belief in a God is a different definition, but it gets brought in by theists as they try to equate mundane and ordinary faith with faith that justifies irrational concepts, like gods or angels, even demons. That is what I mean by tricky language, as it is deceptive. It gets used by theists because they have their backs against the wall due to lack of evidence, and will resort to tricks in desperation. I have observed this for decades.

I used potential to indicate that further understanding of the evidence or the particular phenomenon it may be presumed evidence of may end up precluding that evidence from being associated with that particular phenomenon which some may consider that evidence of.
Evidence itself has to be interpreted to degrees and understanding of phenomenon may change.

Interpretation has to be very, very careful to not add elelments not in the evidence. For example many creationists interpret the 7 day creation as not being an actual 7 days. Why? They argue that it could mean thousands of years for every day. Then why doesn;t the Bible say that? Obviously the interpretor is adding info that isn't in the text, but they are desperate to make their beliefs true and relevant next to what science has discovered. Why not just adjust religious beleif to fit facts and knowledge?

This is what I mean by atheists either changing up the goal posts or ignoring what's been offered.
I gave you several sources of evidences but instead of asking questions or debating the evidence - how for instance information theory and DNA are evidences of intelligent design - you simply ignore it and move on.

How is theists needing evidence changing the goal posts? You have ALWAYS needed evidence, and you don't have it. Those are the rules of discourse, and your problem if you can't work within the rules to demonstrate your claims are true, or even likely true.

I'm seriously wondering if you are out of your depth here. You keep parroting the same thing without consideration of what's been offered. You have to actually think about what's being said. All the data I refer to is factual.
My opinions on the matter may not be true opinions but all the data is factual.

Then where are the facts? You talk about having facts, but don't offer any facts.

This is an emotional response. Another criticism without supporting evidences that I may respond to.

Sorry, incorrect. Intelligent Design IS fraud. It's deliberate fraud, because they have to understand science pretty well to create bogus content. Have you never heard of the Wedge Document? It was a leaked document that showed creationists were going to drop creationism and start using Intelligent Design as a way to fool believers. The religious organizations that promote ID are not science labs doing work. They are propaganda organizations renting office spaces creating disinformation for guilble people.

To be continued.....

 

[Riders]

I wanted to respond to this. I use to be a Christian, quit believing but not in God and now I am considering going back to Christianity. I don't believe there is any proof of Jesus being a real person or a Christian god. However, My Mother dropped out of Christianity and then reembraced it but did not o back to church.

She used AA as her church. But she told me if I believe in the one God I did not have to worry about whether or not I believed in Jesus because God would lead me the right way. So if I feel called or led to Christianity, that would be enough proof for me. It's just for me, and I do not want to tell others to join Christianity.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I wanted to respond to this. I use to be a Christian, quit believing but not in God and now I am considering going back to Christianity. I don't believe there is any proof of Jesus being a real person or a Christian god. However, My Mother dropped out of Christianity and then reembraced it but did not o back to church.

She used AA as her church. But she told me if I believe in the one God I did not have to worry about whether or not I believed in Jesus because God would lead me the right way. So if I feel called or led to Christianity, that would be enough proof for me. It's just for me, and I do not want to tell others to join Christianity.

Sounds like what I've said in the past: I've got no problems with Jesus; it's his fan club I can't stand.
Ever read anything by John Shelby Spong? I just started to re-read Jesus for the Non-Religious, and I think you might find it interesting.

 

[F1fan]

Apparently most of them, certainly you.
The rules of logical analysis of presented evidences.

The rules of logic and debate are not rules of atheism. It's not a coincidence that atheists use reason as a reliable tool that can't conclude any of the many versions of god are true. No believer uses reason and facts to conclude a god exists. They believe for other reasons.

For instance, atheists tend to criticize theists for having beliefs without proof while at the same time claiming they have no beliefs of their own, I suppose in order to have to avoid having to prove anything of their own which they can't.

Atheists have beliefs, but they are reasoned and based on evidence. Religious concepts aren't part of what atheists believe.

I have shown that it is logically impossible for engaged atheists to not have relevant beliefs of their own when approaching this subject matter. The word itself means anti - theism.

False. A-theism means no theism. The A- prefix can mean anti- in some words, but not atheism.

You can't be anti anything without a belief on which to found what your against. Yet atheists would have us believe that they themselves belief nothing and argue nothing and have to do nothing to prove nothing...nothing that is but criticize theists for having beliefs with what they consider to be evidence.

So if atheists are founded on beliefs, and atheists are wrong, then beliefs can be wrong, including religious beliefs, yes?

Atheists seem to be horrible at following their own demands. For instance, a demand for proof when its already been established - and by the scientific community no less - that nothing can be absolutely proven.

Science has facts and data. Theism doesn't.

Atheists generally like to parrot that no evidence has been presented yet evidence has been presented. Its just ignored or interpreted in an atheistic flavor as if the evidence itself has become proof that its not an evidence of God.

This is a common problem for theists who have extraordinary claims, let weak and irrelevant evidence. That's their problem. Critical thinkers use the same high standard for evidence like courts, science, and logic. Theists have very low standards. That's why any religion can justify its own beliefs but only to its own members. Notice even theists of one religion can't convince believers of other religions.

Atheists also seem to tend to equate evidences of intelligent design with proofs of intelligent design so that knowing we can't prove intelligent design many atheists act as if that must mean there isn't evidence of intelligent design.

ID is fraud.

I've asked this before and have yet to get a good answer. What would be good enough evidence for you to believe in intelligent design?

Well there would have to be a creation that makes sense as being designed intelligently, and there just isn't. If you think ID is a true explanation for what exists then that means you need to explain what is intelligently designed about genetic defects and childhood cancers. Or any cancer. Do you have an answer that makes sense?

Can you give me a theoretical discovery that proves intelligent design to you or even just a hint at what evidence would convince you that its more probably evidence of intelligent design than not?

That isn't how science works. You make observatives and collect data and facts, and you devlop a way to test predications of cause and effect. What we observe is a universe that does not care about pain and agony, and organisms suffer and die. So you come up with a conclsuioon that that is intelligently designed.

I mean, after all, if your gonna criticize lack of evidence or evidences presented as not being evidence then you must have some kind of solid idea of what evidence would convince you. Don't just give me the criteria it must fulfill give me a theoretical discovery that would fit the criteria.

If people in the 21st century are going to believe in the gods of cultural traditions that formed thousands of years ago then these modern people need to ask themselves why they still believe. Critical thinkers follow evidence and can't find any adequate evidence for these old superstitious ideas. Either can you, otherwise you would be posting that instead of dancing around the issue accusing atheists of various shortcomings for not being religious.

?? And? Its already, well established that science is limited in its ability to explain all aspects of reality.

And science is the only method that shows its work and follows facts. religion can't even do that. It just has fantastic claims.

And even in many cases it can explain how a phenomena happens but not why it happens that way. Quantum fields, entanglement, charges, even what energy actually is as apposed to does.

Science never claimed to have all the answers as it works towards understand how things are. Religions have it easy, they get away with claiming anything and there is no integrity for showing how they factually arrived at answers. It's made up, and they deceive guilble believers.

There's more to reality than sciences ability to show us. That's an established fact.

And only science offers plausible models.

No, it isn't. But that's not what I said. A man is arrogant if he thinks he has it all figured out and then uses that as an excuse to disregard some aspects of reality simply because it doesn't fit with what he thinks he's got all figured out. Then along comes an anomaly to kick him in the bottom side.

Yet science admits what it can answer and doesn't claim answers it can't show how they arrived at the answer. Religions are so arrogant as to claim gods exist, and actually so bold as to speak for the absent gods.

I agree with you if you think there are arrogant religious people, especially if they somehow think that religious assumptions trump scientific revelation. They apparently don't realize that comparing apples to oranges and expecting similar results will not happen.
Science is a tool for understanding the workings of creation. Science can't be used to understand all of reality though. That is a scientific fact.
Religion is reaction to that portion of reality whos workings remain unrevealed by science but still effects the human experience of reality. There is a portion of religion that overlaps with science. The two are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Science follows facts and data, and uses an objective method. Religions claim anything they damn well please regardless of a lack of evidence. You tell me which has truth.