Why are the religious so sensitive?

[Edwardo Piet]

Anything supernatural almost certainly doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it and lots of evidence against it....So why pick some supernatural things over others if they are all equally unlikely?

Its even possible that if some supernatural things are more likely to exist than others it will be an incredibly simple unintelligent robotic supernatural being (or even object) that is most likely to exist out of the supernatural possibilites...and all religions (that I know of) make much more complicated and unlikely claims than this example of simplicity, and if God was this simple and he simply let the universe grow without any decison on his part because he's not even conscious....thats not really supernatural or even God at all really is it?

And I think even an incredibly simple robot with no mind is very improbable....the root of the universe probably has to be something even more simple most likely maybe something simpler than you can possibly imagine that merly triggers the inflation of the big 'Bang'. Or maybe the universe has always existed which is far more likely than the idea that God has always existed because the idea of God is so much more complicated than the universe was early on, especially considering God is not just supposed to exist but also supposed to have the power to CREATE the universe!

Anyway my conclusion is that IF I made up my own religion and I had strong faith in it, it would be just as important and valid to me and just as likely as the other religions are....so the idea that saying anything against religion in anyway or that merely doubting it is insensitive, is most likely simply due to the ancient sacred history of religion rather than religion itself...because my idea of a new religion IF i had faith in it or believed it in anyway for example would get less support. My religion would seem absurd even though the 'real' religions of today are just as absurd, because my hypothetical religion doesn't have an ancient sacred history.

[starbucks]

I'm no expert on God but all I know is that something gives us LIFE and it ain't the machine hooked up to a person in a coma.

[Edwardo Piet]

If our vital organs work we have LIFE and if atleast one of our vital organs don't work, we don't have LIFE.

As to what gives us life...basically we have evolved from other more primitive organisms and if you go way back to the beginning of life you will find that originally life came out of non-life... After all we ourselves are made up of a lot of 'non-living' elements like calcium and iron for example. Life orignally came out of non-life, because what is life but simply non-life that has a nervous system...can think....has emotions...organs...etc, etc, etc?

One theory I've heard of is that an asteroid crashed on earth before life existed, (atleast on earth) and some asteroids are thought to carry quite large amounts of some form of protein. Might be BS but who knows. I don't believe it but I accept it as a possibility, I don't know of any evidence to support such a claim yet. Maybe someone else has info on this?

[Jason Jarred]

There's probably as much evidence that that happened, as their is for God's existence :p

EDIT: Did I just say "their"? Oh golly, what a day I had yesterday :p

[starbucks]

If our vital organs work we have LIFE and if atleast one of our vital organs don't work, we don't have LIFE.

As to what gives us life...basically we have evolved from other more primitive organisms and if you go way back to the beginning of life you will find that originally life came out of non-life... After all we ourselves are made up of a lot of 'non-living' elements like calcium and iron for example. Life orignally came out of non-life, because what is life but simply non-life that has a nervous system...can think....has emotions...organs...etc, etc, etc?

One theory I've heard of is that an asteroid crashed on earth before life existed, (atleast on earth) and some asteroids are thought to carry quite large amounts of some form of protein. Might be BS but who knows. I don't believe it but I accept it as a possibility, I don't know of any evidence to support such a claim yet. Maybe someone else has info on this?

What I'm saying is that LIFE isn't just the beating of our heart. My mother, who recently passed away last month unexpectedly, had to have brain surgery to remove a blood clot. Though she lived through the surgery, the swelling in her brain shortly afterwards pretty much sealed the deal of her fate. That whole time we were just waiting for her body to shut down. What happened was her brain was pretty much dead and couldn't send the signals to the rest of her organs anyways. So technically, even though the rest of her organs (heart, liver, lungs, etc.) were in perfect working condition, the swelling in the brain which had blocked off the main stem which feeds down info to the rest of the organs would eventually stop. Meaning, the rest of the organs would begin shutting off.

So that whole time, one might say she was alive because her heart was still beating but "clinically" she was a goner.

Sure, that was my mother's body laying there on the hospital bed but was it really her? Did she really have life?

Life is NOT just the fact that we are "breathing" but that there is a "spirit" within us that makes us "alive". A robot can be charged up to be "animate" but does it really have "life"?

[Spashie]

You know what I think? I think Atheists can be as closed minded and sensitive as Christians, sometimes. The thing is, I don't think we tolerate each other much anymore?

Atheism is yet to be fully proven, while it has some of scientific evidence vouching for it, While christianity has a looot of mistakes in the Bible(May not be accurate, mind you.)and also has a few pieces of evidence, which Christians obviously tout around with trumpets and all exaggerating.

The thing is, we aren't fully sure about either, I'm just taking this side.

[Jason Jarred]

I understand your point Spashie, but Atheism is not something to be 'proven'. The belief in God is what needs to be proven, atheism is the default condition of not having been convinced that there is a God.

You could say that we are all born Atheist, until we are old enough to believe anything.

[Spashie]

I understand your point Spashie, but Atheism is not something to be 'proven'. The belief in God is what needs to be proven, atheism is the default condition of not having been convinced that there is a God.

You could say that we are all born Atheist, until we are old enough to believe anything.

Taken and acknowledged. However, I think i meant that we shouldn't think that Atheism is completely "right". Who knows, The flying teapot might come crashing into my house some day.

I dismiss the idea of some big bully in the sky though. But when there is some hardcore undeniable emiprical(Is this right? ) evidence that God does exist(I'm still waiting ), then I'll believe. But I wont devote my whole life, mind you.

But right now, there's no hardcore undeniable empirical evidence towards God whatsoever, So I'll just stay an Atheist, because I've made up my mind thats theres almost certainly no God.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes like Dawkins says... there's always a possibility that atheists are wrong and there is a God.... but it's only as likely as Russel's Teapot.

And about the asterioid thing....I'll give you a reason why it's more likely than God... because there's no evidence for God...but there is for asteroids...and they contain different materials to planets - or atleast most planets. So that makes the asteroid crashing and giving life to earth a lot more probable than God...even if it is unprobable.

[starbucks]

For me it's always been about learning and understanding. Even if I don't agree with a position, I still put effort into investigating why such person believes so.

Take religion for example. A person doesn't have to agree, believe in it, or follow it. But one can still make sense of it if they just opened their eyes and ears to understanding it. Perhaps people are afraid to take this step because they're afraid it will convert them or make them look like a supporter. It's like how people are so afraid to study Hitler because they may find some of his points valid or similar to their own. Just because you can relate or understand the "why" and perspective of another doesn't mean you support his/her actions, etc.