General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Should Churches Be Taxed? [View all]Niko
(97 posts)Just because you say I'm proselytizing doesn't make it so. Look up the definition of the word. Saying that human beings evolved from a common ancestor is not proselytizing, it's educating. The same goes for every single scientific refutation of every other religious claim. And you agree, so good.
As for the claim that there is no god - First, I never said that, and second, the facts point to an increasingly close to 100% probability that there is, as a matter of fact, no god. We're not talking 60% here, or 70% here, or 90%, or 99%, or 99.99%, more like 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. The science is progressing to the point where it's the epitome of ridiculous absurdity to continue to claim your "belief" has any bearing in reality.
Finally, I'd like to you define "god". Since you agree with me that science can disprove pretty much any religious claim, and that it's a method of determining truth over falsehood, and that it's the only rational explanation of any phenomenon, are you to claim that the god you believe in is the deistic god instead of the Abrahamic god? I'm asking if you believe in the one that "started the universe" or "created the laws of physics" but then left things to go on their own without any intervention. Because if that's the case, then you're just as much of an atheist as almost everyone else.
Seriously, if you haven't read it, you should read it: The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins talks about "raising consciousness" early on in the book. One of the things he says is you need to come out of the closet, so to speak. We all agree that the claims of religion are nonsense, yet still cling on to the deistic god, which is pretty much an admission that we're just atheists pretending not to be atheists.