Science was once a child of the church.

[The Valkyrie]

You have made a serious error, I am not religious.

And my name is Queen Elizabeth.

But only on Saturday evenings in special parts of town, right?

[Losty]

Again I ask, so what?

Good question, deserving of a better answer. History is the unfolding of reality that we know. There was no war between religion and science, the fight was between the church and science; know that history. The Roman Catholic church to be exact; and it once ruled over science.

And the real reason science left the church, was because THEY wanted to speak for God, instead of the Bishops! THEY wanted to give the answers, and receive the admiration of the people.

Seriously? So what?

I doesn't matter where science started or why. I doesn't matter that scientists used to be mostly religious. It doesn't matter why they left the church, or even that they left the church.

Science is non-biased, unassuming, and evidence based. Science evolves with new discoveries. Science is never afraid to admit when it's wrong. Science revels in being wrong and having the opportunity to learn new things.
This is why we look to scientists. If the scientists gave us evidence of a god (real evidence) we would go with that. That is the beauty of looking to science instead of of religion. There is no shame in changing your stance every time new evidence becomes available to you.

So one last final time. Scientists were religious, they left the church because they wanted credit for their discoveries.

So what? Why should that mean that atheists shouldn't like science? Why should that mean we cannot use scientific evidence in our arguments against religion?

[Anomalocaris]

. In my view, that is immature response. And disrespectful.

Disrespect?

What is disrespect to a theist, who demonstrates total ignorant and both the concept and history of atheism, and who yet come impertinently to an atheist forum to presume to tell atheists what atheism is and where it came from?

[mickiel]

You are the evidence; explain to me why Atheism would exist, if Theism did not?

Well, first of all, I'm a deist, not an atheist.
Secondly -
That's an odd response but hey, you're new here so I'll answer the question that I JUST asked of you.

The reason why atheism can easily exist without theism is because the default setting of all humans is lack of knowledge.
When you are born, you believe in nothing until some gullible halfwit attempts to imprint you with his own ideas of who created what.

However, not every person ever born on this planet has received such stupidity. There were and are still many who have never believed in a god - thus atheism. Now, if you're merely referencing the fact that the word theism is a part of atheism, than you're just arguing semantics and I have no time for such futile idiocy. I'm hoping that you're not just arguing semantics right?

Summation: The lack of knowledge of any god creates a person who does not believe in god. Therefore, atheism is completely possible to exist without theism.

Well you make a convincing argument, and I can see your point, and agree. I just find it hard to accept that there was a time in humanity, not counting early Neanderthals and Cromagnons, that humans were not being influenced by a belief in gods. Lets just say the last 40-50,000 years, what time in history did humans have the goddless experience you are suggesting?

---

. In my view, that is immature response. And disrespectful.

Disrespect?

What is disrespect to a theist, who demonstrates total ignorant and both the concept and history of atheism, and who yet come impertinently to an atheist forum to presume to tell atheists what atheism is and where it came from?

Are you suggesting that Atheist are not quilty of what you accuse me of now? They never visit Theist boards?

---

Good question, deserving of a better answer. History is the unfolding of reality that we know. There was no war between religion and science, the fight was between the church and science; know that history. The Roman Catholic church to be exact; and it once ruled over science.

And the real reason science left the church, was because THEY wanted to speak for God, instead of the Bishops! THEY wanted to give the answers, and receive the admiration of the people.

Seriously? So what?

I doesn't matter where science started or why. I doesn't matter that scientists used to be mostly religious. It doesn't matter why they left the church, or even that they left the church.

Science is non-biased, unassuming, and evidence based. Science evolves with new discoveries. Science is never afraid to admit when it's wrong. Science revels in being wrong and having the opportunity to learn new things.
This is why we look to scientists. If the scientists gave us evidence of a god (real evidence) we would go with that. That is the beauty of looking to science instead of of religion. There is no shame in changing your stance every time new evidence becomes available to you.

So one last final time. Scientists were religious, they left the church because they wanted credit for their discoveries.

So what? Why should that mean that atheists shouldn't like science? Why should that mean we cannot use scientific evidence in our arguments against religion?

I disagree, science left because it wanted what the church had; power, influence, position in the public, respect and admiration.

Also I agree that Atheist have every right to like science and use it in their arguments; I use science in my arguments for God being real everyday.

[The Valkyrie]

---

Well, first of all, I'm a deist, not an atheist.
Secondly -
That's an odd response but hey, you're new here so I'll answer the question that I JUST asked of you.

The reason why atheism can easily exist without theism is because the default setting of all humans is lack of knowledge.
When you are born, you believe in nothing until some gullible halfwit attempts to imprint you with his own ideas of who created what.

However, not every person ever born on this planet has received such stupidity. There were and are still many who have never believed in a god - thus atheism. Now, if you're merely referencing the fact that the word theism is a part of atheism, than you're just arguing semantics and I have no time for such futile idiocy. I'm hoping that you're not just arguing semantics right?

Summation: The lack of knowledge of any god creates a person who does not believe in god. Therefore, atheism is completely possible to exist without theism.

Well you make a convincing argument, and I can see your point, and agree. I just find it hard to accept that there was a time in humanity, not counting early Neanderthals and Cromagnons, that humans were not being influenced by a belief in gods. Lets just say the last 40-50,000 years, what time in history did humans have the goddless experience you are suggesting?

---

Disrespect?

What is disrespect to a theist, who demonstrates total ignorant and both the concept and history of atheism, and who yet come impertinently to an atheist forum to presume to tell atheists what atheism is and where it came from?

Are you suggesting that Atheist are not quilty of what you accuse me of now? They never visit Theist boards?

---

Seriously? So what?

I doesn't matter where science started or why. I doesn't matter that scientists used to be mostly religious. It doesn't matter why they left the church, or even that they left the church.

Science is non-biased, unassuming, and evidence based. Science evolves with new discoveries. Science is never afraid to admit when it's wrong. Science revels in being wrong and having the opportunity to learn new things.
This is why we look to scientists. If the scientists gave us evidence of a god (real evidence) we would go with that. That is the beauty of looking to science instead of of religion. There is no shame in changing your stance every time new evidence becomes available to you.

So one last final time. Scientists were religious, they left the church because they wanted credit for their discoveries.

So what? Why should that mean that atheists shouldn't like science? Why should that mean we cannot use scientific evidence in our arguments against religion?

---

I disagree, science left because it wanted what the church had; power, influence, position in the public, respect and admiration.

Also I agree that Atheist have every right to like science and use it in their arguments; I use science in my arguments for God being real everyday.
Dude, science, philosophy, etc were around LONG before Christianity.

Much of our knowledge is built upon the teachings of the Greeks, much of which was lost during the Dark Ages - that 800 years when the church controlled Europe and humanity there did not progress.

[mickiel]

---

Well you make a convincing argument, and I can see your point, and agree. I just find it hard to accept that there was a time in humanity, not counting early Neanderthals and Cromagnons, that humans were not being influenced by a belief in gods. Lets just say the last 40-50,000 years, what time in history did humans have the goddless experience you are suggesting?

---

Man, belief in God was around 50,000 years or more before Christianity was created in Rome. As I said before, Christianity is NOT all of religion or belief in God; it holds no monopoly on belief.

Are you suggesting that Atheist are not quilty of what you accuse me of now? They never visit Theist boards?

---

---

I disagree, science left because it wanted what the church had; power, influence, position in the public, respect and admiration.

Also I agree that Atheist have every right to like science and use it in their arguments; I use science in my arguments for God being real everyday.

Dude, science, philosophy, etc were around LONG before Christianity.
Belief in God was here 50,000 years before Christianity was born in Rome.

[Cinjin]

Well, first of all, I'm a deist, not an atheist.
Secondly -
That's an odd response but hey, you're new here so I'll answer the question that I JUST asked of you.

The reason why atheism can easily exist without theism is because the default setting of all humans is lack of knowledge.
When you are born, you believe in nothing until some gullible halfwit attempts to imprint you with his own ideas of who created what.

However, not every person ever born on this planet has received such stupidity. There were and are still many who have never believed in a god - thus atheism. Now, if you're merely referencing the fact that the word theism is a part of atheism, than you're just arguing semantics and I have no time for such futile idiocy. I'm hoping that you're not just arguing semantics right?

Summation: The lack of knowledge of any god creates a person who does not believe in god. Therefore, atheism is completely possible to exist without theism.

Well you make a convincing argument, and I can see your point, and agree. I just find it hard to accept that there was a time in humanity, not counting early Neanderthals and Cromagnons, that humans were not being influenced by a belief in gods. Lets just say the last 40-50,000 years, what time in history did humans have the goddless experience you are suggesting?

There is a culture in the Amazon even today that is completely atheistic. The Pirahã people know of no god and even rejected the idea of Jesus when they found out that the missionaries had never heard or seen him. This is proof positive that atheism exists separate from theism, but even on a much greater scale, there are millions of atheists who have never believed in any god at any time in their life. Regardless of whether or not they heard of your god, they made the choice to reject theism often solely on the premise of my original point: lack of knowledge because of lack of evidence.

[mickiel]

Well you make a convincing argument, and I can see your point, and agree. I just find it hard to accept that there was a time in humanity, not counting early Neanderthals and Cromagnons, that humans were not being influenced by a belief in gods. Lets just say the last 40-50,000 years, what time in history did humans have the goddless experience you are suggesting?

There is a culture in the Amazon even today that is completely atheistic. The Pirahã people know of no god and even rejected the idea of Jesus when they found out that the missionaries had never heard or seen him. This is proof positive that atheism exists separate from theism, but even on a much greater scale, there are millions of atheists who have never believed in any god at any time in their life. Regardless of whether or not they heard of your god, they made the choice to reject theism often solely on the premise of my original point: lack of knowledge because of lack of evidence.

I agree with you, but disagree with it being " Millions", no, not on that scale, but small pockets like those Amazon Piraha.

[Losty]

I disagree, science left because it wanted what the church had; power, influence, position in the public, respect and admiration.

You continue to miss my point. I am starting to feel like you're doing it on purpose.

Also I agree that Atheist have every right to like science and use it in their arguments; I use science in my arguments for God being real everyday.

So....what was the point if your original post then?

[KichigaiNeko]