That's so lame. I can't "disprove" invisible pixies aren't pulling me down towards the center of the planet, should I believe it? Should I just rename gravity to "invpix" and start giving it supernatural attributes?
Why don't you believe in random stuff you can't disprove - or even in stuff that could never be disproven. If I tell you the world is going to end in 93 years, would you continue your life believing in that until you find "proof" to the contrary? What a silly idea that would be.
If I believed in pixies or if I somehow knew that the world would end in 93 years, then yes, I would believe it until I found proof to the contrary. As it is, I do not believe that. And I will continue not to believe that until evidence is presented to the contrary.
It's the same with God, and whether each individual believes in Him or not. Really, we're not so different after all, are we?
I don't see how this is such a mental hurdle. :sarcastic
In a chaotic multiverse, there is no need for a creator. Probably don't want one either.
In a chaotic multiverse wherein science presumes to be able to find some sense of order - perhaps a creator would be the perfect way to explain the sheer complexity of the place we find ourselves in.
any atheist who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god, is working on faith. most atheists don't do that, so try not to make sweeping statements about our beliefs. most of us disbelieve in the existence of god, precisely because there is no reason to believe in god, due to the fact that there is no evidence.
If an atheist finds no reason to believe in God, then I'm sorry, but they are doing exactly the same thintg as theists who find reason to believe in God. Both view points are equally substantiated.
How is that so hard to see?
There is absolutely no evidence one way or the other. What atheists and theists alike both do is attempt to make sense of the world based on their own interpretation: their own perception. To that end, they both either believe or disbelieve because they see no reason to see things any other way.
And I'm sorry, but by definition of the word "atheist", you would have to outright reject God without a shadow of doubt. To have any doubt appreciable whatsoever about the existence or inexistence of God would make one agnostic, not atheistic.
I've always felt that putting a god into the mix of the creation of the universe merely complicates things, but it seems as if it could all have happened naturally anyway, so why add magic?
Because science does not and cannot adequately explain how the universe began, let alone how life started, without some input from somewhere else.
The very laws of physics break down as you approach the time in which the universe began. That's why it's called the "Singularity". Science cannot explain what was going on, and that's why you get purely mathematical concepts like String Theory which may or may not actually apply to reality: because there is no way of actually proving what happened back then.
And don't get me started on Abiogenesis Theory. How a liposome could "magically" transform into a prokaryote through natural selection really is beyond me, no matter how many billions of years it took, and not matter how many misfires happened every second. Saying that life began by chance in this way is like saying that if you stayed at the beach for a long enough time, eventually, a bed of salt would "magically" precipitate underneath you and sustain itself long enough to carry you out to sea. It's unlikely, sure, but it's possible given enough time and enough misfires, right?
It's just that everything would have to be in exactly the right place and exactly the right time, PURELY bu chance. What are the odds of that without some external input?
Evolution is the only theory that science has concerning the origin of life in the universe which adequately described how we could have come about. But everything before that... well... it really doesn't make sense unless you include the possibility of a Creator.
but i will certainly allow for the possibility that there is a god, precisely because i can't disprove god. i just don't believe, which duh, obviously is my opinion, as any theists opinion is that there is a god. So, when someone says they believe in something, they are basically saying in my opinion.
Sort of like how you believe that there probably isn't a God, which is also your opinion? Which, really, makes you know different from people who might think that there is a strong possibility of a God rather than just a slight one.
It's not a matter of opinion that 2+2=4, it's a proven fact, and so is evolution. Believing in God is one thing but as soon as one states what a God does it's a matter of science,
No, it's a matter of faith. Which has nothing to do with science, unless you define "science" as another way of looking at the world. In which case it's very similar to religion, only with a certain level of objectivity.
and god is not included in scientific theory because theory is only concerned with facts.
Wrong. God is not included in scientific theory not because science there is no possibility of His existece - but because his existence or inexistence cannot be proven via the scientific method. Don't turn this into a case of "science versus God" because the two are not mutually exclusive. To claim otherwise is the epitome of arrogance.
God is a belief and that's all it is, nothing more.
But disbelief in God is based on just as much evidence as belief, so I don't see your point.
Evolution is a fact regardless of what any of us believes, so no, evolutionary processes are not a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of fact. Evolution satisfactorily explains how things have come to be and notions of Gods are merely superfluous and play no role in our origins regardless of anyone's opinion.
I agree that evolution is not a matter of opinion. But belief in God is. I don't think anyone has ever said otherwise.
You're arguing objectivity, and then you use the most vague field of science in the world to argue your point?