Great news for everyone

[Napoléon]

Fundies, on the other hand, seem to think that if we don't have the answers as this moment, we never will, so why bother?

No they think they already have the answers and so can sit on their arse and get a free ride into magic land.

[KichigaiNeko]

Unless you are a criminal and have been ordered by the courts to do "community duty"

[Jaysyn]

My response "I have no idea,but if you mention Jesus, I am going to punch you in the mouth" He went all chicken-lipped,she just continued looking absent. He stalked off,muttering..Wifey trotted behind.

That is awesome.

[KichigaiNeko]

Should be more of it eh??

[NoMoreFaith]

Let me break it down for all the above a little. Let's say I have an equation to which the solution is unsolvable ATT:

3+5+6+2+9+x+y+z=?

and most materialsts and atheists find it (and rightly so) more practical to eliminate variables that are also unknowable, thus:

3+5+6+2+9=?

Then they come up with just as unprovable a solution as we had with the variables, because not everything is yet accounted for.

x,y and z= might very well be 0 and I'd be in the same place you all are.

1-I postulate the at least x or y seems like soemthing real to me and I'm more stupid because of it?
2-Isn't removing a subset (or relationally removing any possibility of evidence that could change your equation) in an equation more limiting than allowing for their possiblity?

The problem, and the reason it limits intellectual capacity are self evident because religion asserts the answer and demands that x+y+z fits the answer.

For instance;

3+5+6+2+9=31

We realise that 31 is not the answer, so science has to look for x+y+z as the reason why 31 is the answer. We look for reasons for the observable.

So to use your example;

3+5+6+2+9+(GOD)=31

Science examines what x,y,z is, religion puts God in the gaps. If that isn't intellectually stunting investigation and knowledge, I don't know what is.

Personally, I want to know what x+y+z is, come up with a theory that x=1 y=2 and z=3, test it, and if its wrong, try a different hypothesis.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim x+y+z=GOD and then declare yourself the winner.

[Faith No More]

Then the same questions and burden apply to you. Establish that any belief limits intellectual capacity.

Answer me this tack. How come the only people that seem to think the evidence points to a young earth are theists? Beleifs don't necessarily limit intellectual capacity, but they very much can.

[KichigaiNeko]

THIS is what your "great news" is doing Tacky...proud of your self are you??

[Ace Otana]

Then the same questions and burden apply to you. Establish that any belief limits intellectual capacity.

First off, there is no burden on me. Ha ha.
Also having silly beliefs can hold you back. Like creationists, they gladly ignore all the evidence we have for an old earth, they challenge the hard facts with nothing. They spread misconceptions about evolution, atheism and science. They will not accept something that contradicts what they want to be true. They have limited themselves to a small black box. Never seeing anything outside of it. Not all theists would ignore hard facts but most do.

I always stick to Occam's Razer. I always stick to evidence. If you cannot provide any for your god, it will be ruled out.

Then they come up with just as unprovable a solution as we had with the variables, because not everything is yet accounted for.

What's wrong with sticking to - I don't know?
We don't know where all this came from and so that is the truth. The answer to the big question is - ?
Theists assert that X is responsible and I'm asking for evidence for X. A does not prove B without first proving A. Until then, it's ruled out.

[Welsh cake]

If the question of our existence is relevant, why is postulating a possible solution, limiting to intellect in any way?

Because "God did it" shuts down all other lines of enquiry and ends the investigation into reality before its even commenced. Why else do you think a good deal of religious people swagger about invincibly thinking their god (and by extension their follower) has all the answers?

You haven't established clearly how discerning fact from fantasy sabotages one's capacity to learn and acquire new knowledge.

I never said that tack. Check my post again please.

If I wasn't 'concise' enough then allow me to expand. Uncritically accepting any extraordinary claim such as a deity exists without verifying it first, requires a suspension of critical thinking, that can damage one's filter for evidence, whether open-minded or not, resulting in a person allowing more invalid ideas and arguments refuted by science to become accepted.

The overwhelming baggage of that deity, the seemingly endless claims about the god, both local and foreign, and also all the contradictory claims about it, are all taken on-board without question as well. In the end they are a mess that can't tell fact from fiction any more. This ultimately leads to the sabotage of one's capacity to learn and acquire new knowledge.

An open mind with no demand for evidence will let in a lot of rubbish. A closed mind with no demand for evidence will learn nothing.

If I believed in unicorns,

That's asinine. Unicorns and gods are not even in the same plane of thought. They're separate concepts entirely. You cannot hope to compare those two vastly different claims and except them to carry the same weight.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me break it down for all the above a little. Let's say I have an equation to which the solution is unsolvable ATT:

3+5+6+2+9+x+y+z=?

and most materialsts and atheists find it (and rightly so) more practical to eliminate variables that are also unknowable, thus:

3+5+6+2+9=?

Then they come up with just as unprovable a solution as we had with the variables, because not everything is yet accounted for.

x,y and z= might very well be 0 and I'd be in the same place you all are.

1-I postulate the at least x or y seems like soemthing real to me and I'm more stupid because of it?
2-Isn't removing a subset (or relationally removing any possibility of evidence that could change your equation) in an equation more limiting than allowing for their possiblity?

"Algebra of the Gaps" You know these "of the gaps" arguments are more convincing when we don't have to first manufacture the gap to place our proposal within it. By "more" I mean "not in the least, but I can't help myself".