Why do you think that happiness and goodness necessarily come from a baseless belief in a magic, white haired, child molesting, mass murderer in the sky?

You’ll find that atheists in general are as happy and as moral as anyone else.

You mentioned various spirits, starting with God, winding through angels and culminating in the Holy Spirit.

Maybe you’ll have the integrity and courage to consider carefully and think through what I’m about to say …

* That which is spirit is immaterial, incorporeal, supernatural, non-physical.

* It is impossible for non-physical things to have physical properties.

* Physical properties are:
1) Energy – information, entropy, force, effect.
2) Dimensionality – spacetime location, spacetime dimensions.

* Time is a physical dimension.

* Space is a physical dimension.

* Something which is non-physical does not have physical properties.

* Something which has physical properties is physical.

Therefore, a spirit has no energy or physical dimensionality.

This is just another way of saying that spirits have no dimensions, information, force or effect and they do not and cannot exist anywhere or at any time in the Universe.

Spirits are no more real then, than square circles.

Spirits are mental constructs. Spirits are invented concepts. Spirits are pretend. Spirits are fictional. Spirits are imaginary.

Spirits are the quintessence of square circles.

you have got to be joking…

if you think for a moment I’m going to take this trash seriously:
http://www.insightsofgod.com/spiritual_warfare.html

I have listened to people who claim they have been to hell and back. I have heard it all and it just reeks and reeks of magical thinking and the reminder of those poor children who have been taught to believe such atrocities. these beliefs are unethical and harmful.

my original point was that religions as organizations inhibit the momentum of science and intellectual honesty. we have seen this historically many times. the suggestion that “my personal god helped me do it and you can’t say he didn’t” is both silly and beside the point.

now if you’re going to resort to attacking my name, well that’s just cute… I’ll refrain from twisting the facts..

okay. lets revisit your statement: “The point of my comment was to say the so-called founders of modern science believed in God. To say as you did, that religion inhibits science is to ignore history and to ignore scientific progress made by Christians today. The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isn’t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.”

you claim that the science is *more* motivated by a belief in god than by a disbelief in gods. on what basis can you assert that?

I assert that the scientific breakthroughs that came from religous men (who again, had little freedom of their religion) were totally in *spite* of their religion. I assert this on the basis that no science has ever been derived from biblical sources. it has never been shown that a divine being gives more “science” to believers than to non-believers. most scientists are atheist or agnostic.

“In part, yes, but normal human curiosity is all that most people require.”

my problem is with the first three words of this sentence.
you readily admit that belief isn’t required, yet somehow in *part* you still assert that it was god that instilled the beautiful findings of science in those few scientists who said they were god-fearing..
inal point was that religions as organizations inhibit the moment
my origum of science and intellectual honesty. we have seen this historically many times. the suggestion that “my personal god helped me do it and you can’t say he didn’t” is both silly and beside the point.

“this is practically offensive it’s so wrong. you don’t seriously believe that without a belief in a deity (the very notion of which is *highly* unscientific, mind you) that there would be no motivation to make new discoveries? ”

Your ability to read is offensive. I said “normal human curiosity is all that most people require” which means belief in deities is not freakin’ ***REQUIRED*** !!! Do you know what the word even means?

Sorry, may I just cut in. I recommend you (and every other “PROUDLY ATHEIST” on this website) visit the “Insights of God” website. This is a website on true life testimonies of people who went to hell and back. Even if you do not believe such things exist, just give it a try. Just Google “Insights of God, visions of eternity”.

As for the Science facts on Christianity, I would have recommended a DVD I watched called “Incredible” about the galaxy and God’s amazing wonders compiled by Scientists. I was almost close to tears having watched it because it is so touching. I will try to find out the details for you. In the meantime, please visit the Insights of God website.

>The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isn’t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.

this is practically offensive it’s so wrong. you don’t seriously believe that without a belief in a deity (the very notion of which is *highly* unscientific, mind you) that there would be no motivation to make new discoveries? history would show quite the reverse. You seem to forget that until quite recently it was not really an option to be an atheist. not at all. when new discoveries in science throw a wrench in the current beliefs of the faith, you can bet your life that they’ll do everything in their power to keep the truth from the masses (as we’ve seen with galileo and currently in US science classes) you also seem to ignore the fact that the majority of scientists are agnostics or atheists. hmmm. what could possibly drive them, if not an imaginary being? surely not their concern for humanity, honesty, an appetite for truth, and a decent paycheck…

>I explain it by saying belief in God isn’t *required* to make useful discoveries. I never said it was *required* and no thinking person would say that. It’s obvious that such a belief isn’t *required*.

more of the same…
you might as well be attempting to argue on the basis of race: “well, the majority of the world’s greatest scientists were white, so therefore white people must be endowed with the greatest intelligence.”

the reality of the situation is that many great scientists and thinkers were practicing in times when disbelief in god was simply off the table in any public sense without serious consequences.

the devout didn’t stop burning witches and heretics at the stake because they became *more* religious, rather that they adopted the reason and ethics of scientific thought.

please reread the dennett interview for a more in depth look at the implications of the fact that “There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science.” it may be hard to come to terms with, but it’s truly something to think about.

In part, yes, but normal human curiosity is all that most people require.

“if so you’ve got a lot of explanation to do. how, for instance would you explain the fact that scientists who don’t believe in gods could make useful discoveries?”

I explain it by saying belief in God isn’t *required* to make useful discoveries. I never said it was *required* and no thinking person would say that. It’s obvious that such a belief isn’t *required*.

The point of my comment was to say the so-called founders of modern science believed in God. To say as you did, that religion inhibits science is to ignore history and to ignore scientific progress made by Christians today. The belief that God created the universe apparently drives people to take things apart, look through microscopes and see if they can learn something about God. Imagine that. Lack of belief isn’t much of a motivator as far as I can tell.

steveK said: “Tell that to all the theists and deists who are considered to be the founders of modern science. For my own part, I have yet to be convinced of atheism’s contribution to scientific understanding.”

are you suggesting for a moment that they made their discoveries because of their belief? if so you’ve got a lot of explanation to do. how, for instance would you explain the fact that scientists who don’t believe in gods could make useful discoveries? here’s a challenge for you: give me an example of a scientific discovery that came from any religion that could not have been discovered without its aid.

I’ll post it again, because it is quite spot on and far better than I could put it. this is from Daniel Dennett:
“There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science. Many who readily grant this have not considered its implications. It means, for instance, that there are no factual assertions about the origin of the universe or its future trajectory, or about historical events (floods, the parting of seas, burning bushes, etc.), about the goal or purpose of life, or about the existence of an afterlife and so on, that are off limits to science. After all, assertions about the purpose or function of organs, the lack of purpose or function of, say, pebbles or galaxies, and assertions about the physical impossibility of psychokinesis, clairvoyance, poltergeists, trance channeling, etc. are all within the purview of science; so are the parallel assertions that strike closer to the traditionally exempt dogmas of long-established religions. You can’t consistently accept that expert scientific testimony can convict a charlatan of faking miracle cures and then deny that the same testimony counts just as conclusively—”beyond a reasonable doubt”—against any factual claims of violations of physical law to be found in the Bible or other religious texts or traditions.”

“What does that leave for religion to talk about? Moral injunctions and declarations of love (and hate, unfortunately), and other ceremonial speech acts. The moral codes of all the major religions are a treasury of ethical wisdom, agreeing on core precepts, and disagreeing on others that are intuitively less compelling, both to those who honor them and those who don’t. The very fact that we agree that there are moral limits that trump any claim of religious freedom—we wouldn’t accept a religion that engaged in human sacrifice or slavery, for instance—shows that we do not cede to religion, to any religion, the final authority on moral injunctions.”