RE: I believe!
October 29, 2008 at 8:21 am
(This post was last modified: October 29, 2008 at 8:29 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 28, 2008 at 8:46 pm)Teen4Jesus Wrote: Existence is proof of God! Kent Hovind was wrongly convicted because you aren't allowed to tax religious institutions and all his work was God's! The scientific community just wanted him to go away because he was scaring them (he rebelled against their atheist conspiracy!)Existence is not evidence of God and it certainly isn't proof!
All evidence suggests that all natural things came about gradually and naturally, not all of a sudden. There is no evidence of the supernatural and any supernatural created would always have to be more complex and improbable than his creations.
As Dan Dennett would say, life comes about by cranes, not skyhooks. Sky hooks are "magic-spells" they're cop-outs and they don't really exist.
And NO religion SHOULD not be allowed to go about un-taxed. I'm not against teaching ABOUT the bible, as a work of ficition because the books of the bible ARE fictional.
Considering religion is almost certainly a load of nonsense and it can also do a lot of harm they certainly should ATLEAST be taxed. I don't think religion should be taught at all, apart from as a work of fiction like I said. Its ok to teach ABOUT religion, about what christians believe for example. But its absurd in this modern age to be teaching it as true!
So, you DO need to provide evidence. And until there's strong evidence that these absurd bible claims are true, religion should certainly atleast be taxed. They have no special place over other schools. Far from it, religion is a load of rubbish outside a work as fictional literature.
So, you're going to have to do better than that. Evidence please.
And about the whole you being "open minded" thing, as Dawkins says: "It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
And also Dawkins said: ""There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
So, evidence please. Before your brains fall out completely. No offense.