Tópico: It's a miracle!

[Euzébio]

I don't see any problem with denying the existence of something whose existence is not only unproven, but if proven, would violate the laws of physics as we know them.

And what things would violate these laws? Do we know everything about the Universe and its laws?

In the absence of evidence either way, belief in non-existence is just as valid as belief in existence.

Maybe I can't prove the non-existence of a god, but there is no reason not to carry on with my life as if I can prove it.

Yes, Galileo, it's true.

My atheism is completely consistent with all my empirical experience with the world. Those who believe in a deity, however, frequently encounter inconsistencies between their belief and the reality of the world that presents itself to them.

What kind of inconsistencies?

 :confu:

[Südenbauer]

I hate the Euzébio.  

[Galileo]

What kind of inconsistencies?

 :confu:

I am sure you are being disingenuous. Are you really asking me to educate you about the inconsistencies between religious dogma and science?

Do you not know the story of how my namesake Galileo was threatened with torture and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life because he used scientific observation and rational thought to show that the dogma of religious scripture was wrong?

Do I really have to point out to an intelligent person that belief in the historical existence of Noah's Ark goes contrary to everything we know about the evolution of life on Earth and its diversity of species?

Do you really need to be told that the transsubstantiation of wine into the blood of Christ is not only a chemical and physical impossibility, but has actually never been seen to occur?

Is it not apparent to anyone with a brain that belief in a supernatural God who is supposed to love humankind, but who at the same time causes thousands of innocents to die in a tsunami, is the height of inconsistency?

Any one who wants to maintain belief in a deity has to go about constantly rationalizing away the obvious inconsistencies between their "faith" and the actual reality of how the world works. To maintain their faith they have to ignore the evidence that reality presents to them constantly.

We non-believers, on the other hand, don't have to ignore any evidence at all in order to be comfortable in our atheism.

[rizk]

Yes, Galileo, you DO. And then he'll probably pretend he didn't read it and start writing about aliens. alright.

[Euzébio]

I hate the Euzébio.  

Ahn... I hate me too!

 

[Euzébio]

Yes, Galileo, you DO.

No, he doesn´t.

And then he'll probably pretend he didn't read it and start writing about aliens. alright.

You're wrong, again. I've read his post, but it's a long one and it's in english! (I need a certain time to understand it better)

 

Wait a little and I'll answer him...

 

[rizk]

Well, it's all that stuff people usually tell you. Nothing more, nothing less, and we've all seen you ignore it before.
But one always can change.

[Euzébio]

What kind of inconsistencies?

 :confu:

I am sure you are being disingenuous. Are you really asking me to educate you about the inconsistencies between religious dogma and science?

No, we are just talking about supposed inconsistencies

Do you not know the story of how my namesake Galileo was threatened with torture and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life because he used scientific observation and rational thought to show that the dogma of religious scripture was wrong?

When was that, 400 years ago?

Do I really have to point out to an intelligent person that belief in the historical existence of Noah's Ark goes contrary to everything we know about the evolution of life on Earth and its diversity of species?

But did the Science already prove it, through its scientific method, the inexistence of the Ark? I particularly believe that the Ark is a symbolism, or even something more unusual. (like an UFO!)

Do you really need to be told that the transsubstantiation of wine into the blood of Christ is not only a chemical and physical impossibility, but has actually never been seen to occur?

I understand the Bible as one of the oldest existing ufologic reports. I'm not Christian, I don't follow any religion. And I'm not atheistic, or agnostic. I think that we shouldn't take literally the biblical symbolism...

Is it not apparent to anyone with a brain that belief in a supernatural God who is supposed to love humankind, but who at the same time causes thousands of innocents to die in a tsunami, is the height of inconsistency?

My vision of the tsunami, or any other natural catastrophe,  is the kardecist vision (collective rescue of  past lives debts). Besides, I think the Nature doesn't have adjust itself to the human beings, but the human beings have to adjust themselves to the Nature. However, I don't think that God is cruel for having allowed the Nature to follow its natural course, even if for that some thousands of human beings have lost their lives.

Any one who wants to maintain belief in a deity has to go about constantly rationalizing away the obvious inconsistencies between their "faith" and the actual reality of how the world works. To maintain their faith they have to ignore the evidence that reality presents to them constantly.

That is the price of each religion. But I ask: is it really necessary to follow a religion? I don't think so. The religions  took possession of the idea of God, but all are contradictory with this same idea.

We non-believers, on the other hand, don't have to ignore any evidence at all in order to be comfortable in our atheism.

To deny peremptorily has the same weight of believing peremptorily.

In the end, I continue not knowing which are the inconsistencies that believers have to face among their faith and the world that surrounds them.

 

[Galileo]

"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."
- Jeremiah 5:21