...come up with boneheaded conclusions like this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/cover.story/index.html

Seriously, where do they get off making claims like this? Science does stand in opposition to many traditional claims that religion makes, but against the God concept itself?

Science has nothing to say about the concept of God itself. The concept of God is a concept lacking any empirical content in and of itself. There's no way to test for the existence of God (in practice or in theory). No amount of evidence can stack up to prove his existence, or disprove his existence. It's outside of the bounds of scientific inquiry.

This is what happens when you take a bunch of scientists and let them run around without a leash. They forget the boundaries of their sandbox, and think they can use their method to make judgments about all sorts of things. The really embarassing thing for them is when they forget what science can and cannot achieve.

It sucks to see so many brilliant minds make such silly conclusions.

[Edited on November 5, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2006 10:42:57 PM

and this...is why atheists are silly

11/5/2006 10:45:48 PM

Asking "Does God exist?" in scientific terms is like asking "what is chair plus banana?" in terms of arithmetic over the natural numbers.

Science has no place making judgments about stuff that has no intersection with phenomenal reality at any point.

11/5/2006 10:57:57 PM

Know that I shall crack your skull like a clam on my tummy!

11/5/2006 10:58:45 PM

Nor does man, but that's just my 2 cents.

11/5/2006 11:12:07 PM

I'll answer the question for them. There is no god

11/5/2006 11:24:38 PM

i would actually like to hear what Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, has to say

he's obviously a very important scientist yet has a lot of faith, which is unusual

overall, this is a silly topic though, and a silly thing to be debating

real scientists are more in line with mechanics than philosophers

they do real work

11/5/2006 11:36:26 PM

Quote :

"Science has nothing to say about the concept of God itself. The concept of God is a concept lacking any empirical content in and of itself."

sure, if you completely deny quantum physics. do you really think we're going to live by "if it isn't measureable, it doesn't exist" forever? i realize we haven't reached that revolution yet, but it is incorrect to assume science hasn't had a lot to say about the concept of God. hell, einstein spent a great part of his life looking for an equation for God similar to E=MC^2. i bet he had something to say about the concept of God.

Quote :

"This is what happens when you take a bunch of scientists and let them run around without a leash. They forget the boundaries of their sandbox"

sounds like a good way to avoid a paradigm shift. staying in the realm of newtonian physics is ultimately going to show us how limited our palette is for explaining reality. i'm no expert, but my intuition tells me we're going to approach the treshold of the quantum revolution in our lifetime, and this sandbox you speak of will be embarrassingly limited in comparison.

11/5/2006 11:46:07 PM

All the god(s) of major religions throughout western civilization tend to involve having demi-god children who use tons of magic before they die. And often times the demi-gods come back from dead. And often times these gods battle goatman & serpents. All those stories were old news in religion before Jesus came around to repeat them (see Hercules, Apollo, Asclepius and countless others). But the magic elements of the stories can be said to be unlikely assuming that conditions in the past are like the conditions of today. The non-phenomenal god that a philosopher would defend is a far cry from any god that anyone of faith would ever believe in, and any atheist would claim to definitely not believe in.

11/5/2006 11:48:34 PM

Quote :

"i bet [Einstein] had something to say about the concept of God."

Einstein had a lot to say about god....

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Quote :

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Quote :

"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

I think that's an outstanding quote, and one not many scientists could argue with. We cannot prove nor disprove a god. But if you feel the need to accept the existance of a god, it is reasonable to assume god is simply the universe itself, or one who ensures the existance and harmony of physics. There is absolutely no reason to assume an all powerful and omnipotent being would be concerned in the least of the meddlings of humans.

Quote :

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things."

Quote :

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

Quote :

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. "

11/6/2006 12:02:35 AM

right, there might need be some clarification or loose definition of what we mean by God. you're talking about a personal God, as those are the Einstein quotes you're focusing on. McDanger's exact words were 'God concept,' so this is what i was talking about. there is going to be a cosmic smack in the face to many of us as quantum physics continues to redefine reality and delve into spirituality. as a person who knows very little, i boldly predict one of the nastiest religious/spiritual debates in human history when this hits the traditional projection of a personal God head-on. there will inevitably be a revolution, and this is going to be one of the biggest in human history.

11/6/2006 12:34:59 AM

If you think scientists are bad, what about lawyers? Just as some scientists try to tackle certain insoluble questions with the scientific method, some lawyers apparently believe that certain outcomes--if not all outcomes--should be determined through the adversarial system.

Both are examples of humankind's arrogance in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is some higher entity or power responsible for the existence of all perceived reality and beyond. I am no expert on faith--I do not identify myself with any specific religion--but doesn't this get to the heart of what faith is about? Isn't it about transcending science and the law and all manner of worldly things to just believe? And for critical thinkers that would choose to do so, just believing is a very scary proposition, isn't it?

11/6/2006 12:36:05 AM

Quote :

"overwhelming evidence that there is some higher entity or power responsible for the existence of all perceived reality and beyond"

haaahahahahahahahahahaha. More like overwhelming stupidity and superstitions

11/6/2006 12:41:43 AM

DONT DATE ROBOTS

11/6/2006 12:44:29 AM

Keep telling yourself that, man. All the universe and possibly beyond and everything contained therein just. . .happened. . .in a big bang. All this was just a happy-assed accident. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Ingnorance really IS bliss!

11/6/2006 12:47:33 AM

Quote :

"It sucks to see so many brilliant minds make such silly conclusions. "

i say that about religious people

11/6/2006 1:13:18 AM

Quote :

"he's obviously a very important scientist yet has a lot of faith, which is unusual"

It's really not...

Sure there are a lot more atheists among scientists than the general population, but most important scientists still have faith. You probably won't see string theorists going door to do asking if you've been saved, but you shouldn't be surprised to hear them muse about the mind of god in terms of vibrating strings in 10 dimensional hyperspace. Michio Kaku said something to that effect during one of his interviews.

On the other hand, the idea of scientists being predominately atheist does fit with the attempts made by certain aspects of our society to villify science and the scientist in general.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 1:44 AM. Reason : ]

11/6/2006 1:40:52 AM

Quote :

"Keep telling yourself that, man. All the universe and possibly beyond and everything contained therein just. . .happened. . .in a big bang. All this was just a happy-assed accident. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Ingnorance really IS bliss!"

As opposed to being created by a magical invisible man who lives in the sky?

11/6/2006 2:19:01 AM

^ Stop rippin' off George Carlin. One with the balls to call himself "God" should not need to plagiarize.

You will note well that I posted "some higher entity or power [emphasis added] responsible for the existence of all perceived reality and beyond." In addition, I posted "I do not identify myself with any specific religion." I find it curious that you immediately tried to pigeonhole me as a monotheist. Is that your typical MO?

In any event, what I actually posted bears no resemblance to your twisted version of it. Why don't you pull back, regroup, and post something besides regurgitated bullshit--you know, for a change.

11/6/2006 4:44:18 AM

Quote :

"But the magic elements of the stories can be said to be unlikely assuming that conditions in the past are like the conditions of today."

But conditions in the past weren't the same as the conditions of today. Namely, religion assumes the son of God was walking the Earth at that time. That's a pretty big difference that easily explains the magic elements.

That one's not even difficult.

11/6/2006 7:18:43 AM

writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture

11/6/2006 9:23:11 AM

Quote :

" "he's obviously a very important scientist yet has a lot of faith, which is unusual" It's really not... Sure there are a lot more atheists among scientists than the general population, but most important scientists still have faith. You probably won't see string theorists going door to do asking if you've been saved, but you shouldn't be surprised to hear them muse about the mind of god in terms of vibrating strings in 10 dimensional hyperspace. Michio Kaku said something to that effect during one of his interviews. On the other hand, the idea of scientists being predominately atheist does fit with the attempts made by certain aspects of our society to villify science and the scientist in general."

no dude, you're wrong

here is the text... it's a Nature article, so it will be easy to find

Leading scientists still reject God

Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge." [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Figures are percentages.

Repeating Leuba's methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the "great scientists" among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists [1,2]. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our "greater" scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as "great scientists" in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.

For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS "great scientists". It asked about the respondent's belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question [1]. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.

Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 "biological and physical scientists", with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers [1]. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members [1,2].

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.

Edward J. Larson
Department of History, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia 30602-6012, USA
e-mail:edlarson@uga.edu

Larry Witham
3816 Lansdale Court, Burtonsville,
Maryland 20866, USA

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

these are members of the National Academy of Sciences

the only way you can really be more "accomplished" is by winning a noble prize

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ,]

11/6/2006 10:59:01 AM

Quote :

"Asking "Does God exist?" in scientific terms is like asking "what is chair plus banana?" in terms of arithmetic over the natural numbers. "

HAHAHA!

11/6/2006 11:03:43 AM

Quote :

"Hey, Flanders, heading for church? Well, I thought I could save you a little time. Oooh, found a new shortcut? Better. I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no God. We'll just see about that. Uh-oh. Well, maybe he made a mistake. Nope, it's airtight. Can't let this little doozy get out."

11/6/2006 11:42:54 AM

aha chair plus banana

11/6/2006 11:47:44 AM

^^^^ I guess education and "faith" are less compatable than I gave them credit for being.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ]

11/6/2006 11:50:24 AM

it's not really about education and faith

it's about scientists and faith

science is about objective reason

as a scientist, you can have faith, but you will have to make a disconnect between what you do for a living and your religious beliefs

some do it...

11/6/2006 11:55:03 AM

I submit that nobody here can prove or disprove God and all discussions along that line are entirely irrelevant.

11/6/2006 12:04:48 PM

^ Nor can anyone prove or disprove the existence of the Loch Ness monster, and all discussions along that line are entirely irrelevant.

11/6/2006 12:27:59 PM

That isn't true at all.

11/6/2006 12:52:11 PM

proving or disproving the loch ness monster is as simple as draining the entire lake it is supposed to be living in.

proving or disproving an entity beyond our realm of existence is entirely impossible because it is not to be proven or disproven

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2006 1:07:40 PM

Quote :

"sure, if you completely deny quantum physics. do you really think we're going to live by "if it isn't measureable, it doesn't exist" forever? i realize we haven't reached that revolution yet, but it is incorrect to assume science hasn't had a lot to say about the concept of God. hell, einstein spent a great part of his life looking for an equation for God similar to E=MC^2. i bet he had something to say about the concept of God."

I'm sorry, but you seem confused here. It's not a problem with measurability. It's a problem with the concept of God existing outside of nature altogether. As far as the god-concept is concerned, there's nothing you can do to stack up evidence either way.

Quote :

"sounds like a good way to avoid a paradigm shift. staying in the realm of newtonian physics is ultimately going to show us how limited our palette is for explaining reality. i'm no expert, but my intuition tells me we're going to approach the treshold of the quantum revolution in our lifetime, and this sandbox you speak of will be embarrassingly limited in comparison."

You misunderstood what I meant by sandbox. Science should make judgments about nature. That's it. How exactly would you go about testing for a supernatural substance or being? The concept doesn't even make sense within the scope of science.

Quote :

"But the magic elements of the stories can be said to be unlikely assuming that conditions in the past are like the conditions of today. The non-phenomenal god that a philosopher would defend is a far cry from any god that anyone of faith would ever believe in, and any atheist would claim to definitely not believe in. "

And claiming to refute the God-concept based on any of those religions would be a text-book strawman argument.

Quote :

"Einstein had a lot to say about god...."

Appeal to authority. Why should I care? It's not science.

Quote :

""I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." I think that's an outstanding quote, and one not many scientists could argue with. We cannot prove nor disprove a god. But if you feel the need to accept the existance of a god, it is reasonable to assume god is simply the universe itself, or one who ensures the existance and harmony of physics. There is absolutely no reason to assume an all powerful and omnipotent being would be concerned in the least of the meddlings of humans."

All fine and good, but Spinoza's pantheism reduces to atheism. Such a God wouldn't be "concerned" with anything at all, not because of how powerful it is, but because it has no distinct identity separate from the sum total of everything in the universe (all thoughts, all objects, etc).

Besides, that quote betrays a misreading of Spinoza. Spinoza's God doesn't "reveal himself" in the lawful harmony of the world. Spinoza's God IS the world. You, me, this chair I'm sitting in, what I'm thinking, the poop of a dog, etc.

Either way, this is more a redefinition of the God concept than anything. For those that think God somehow is SUPERnatural (rather than all-natural), they have no way to show it one way or another.

Basically the claim of God's existence is a vacuous one. We can't confirm it. Therefore making a judgment one way or another is a little silly.

Quote :

"Keep telling yourself that, man. All the universe and possibly beyond and everything contained therein just. . .happened. . .in a big bang. All this was just a happy-assed accident. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Ingnorance really IS bliss!"

Why couldn't the Universe have always existed? If God HAD to create the Universe, why is it that nothing should HAVE to create God (and then so on, ad infinitum)?

Quote :

"i say that about religious people"

So do I.

Quote :

"proving or disproving an entity beyond our realm of existence is entirely impossible because it is not to be proven or disproven"

I totally agree with this. I'm not arguing for a religious viewpoint, but for a stance of agnosticism. There's an infinity of vacuous claims we can make. Should I have to develop a "for" or "against" view on all of them?

11/6/2006 1:35:38 PM

Quote :

"proving or disproving the loch ness monster is as simple as draining the entire lake it is supposed to be living in."

Hah, but they won't ever do that. Too many people "rely" on the myth. Same thing with "God".

11/6/2006 2:05:00 PM

for all of you who believe in god, why do you believe in god instead of hades or poseidon? since you don't, how can you PROVE there's no hades or poseidon. hell, you all could be dead wrong in which god is real and end up in your supposed hell anyway

11/6/2006 2:22:44 PM

The son of the Almighty God, and one associated with resurrection. Apollo. The one from the religion where a woman causes the downfall of man (Pandora), and the surviving pious couple have to repopulate the world (Deucalion story), the religion of immaculately conceived demi-gods who come back from the dead (Theseus, Hercules), and the one where gods do water to wine type magic (Athena & Dionysus, where the story actually represents the cultures achievement of creating wine as a way of preserving fruit nutrients throughout winter. The one where babies are abandoned or sent down rivers, and later come back as leaders (Oedipus). Why does the Vatican store pictures of Apollo that later artists used as a base on how to depict Jesus, why does every modern hospital, ambulance, and medical facility have the staff of Aesculapius (the Greek symbol associated with acts of healing and resurrection)? Because these are stock type characters that you’ll find in Zoroastrianism and the stories of Gilgamesh (had a great flood, flooding was a part of farming which is a big part of ancient life) and countless other myths before and after Jesus came on scene. And these stock type literary characters represent cultural achievements, physical migrations of people, economic changes, and people’s hopes and desires. Yahweh seems no different than any of the gods who came before him or after him.

But McDanger isn't discussing a notion of god that any large group of people would ever believe in. Science can't disprove an utterly useless notion of god. But science and reason can pretty much show that no interesting god(s) are very reasonable.

11/6/2006 2:32:37 PM

There are a lot of things in this world which we cannot understand, or even achieve understanding of. However, this does not mean that people in general should not ask themselves the question, "What is the meaning of life?" For all people the question leads to a different and individualistic spiritual end. Not all people believe in an afterlife, and some people believe in nothing at all. However, their conclusions are no less valid than yours, and that is the point.

11/6/2006 2:39:18 PM

Quote :

"But McDanger isn't discussing a notion of god that any large group of people would ever believe in. Science can't disprove an utterly useless notion of god. But science and reason can pretty much show that no interesting god(s) are very reasonable. "

Huh? I always thought quite a few people believed in a God that "set up" the Universe and never mucked with it again.

This is actually quite relevant and interesting. What's to say God couldn't have created the world with an objective set of morals, and then left to go do something else? I'd say knowledge of such a system would be quite important, wouldn't you?

11/6/2006 3:07:26 PM

Quote :

"All fine and good, but Spinoza's pantheism reduces to atheism."

Yes it does.

Spinoza was not a Deist, which is what you're referring to in the last post though, McDanger.

The Spinozistic idea of God was never widely held, unless you include Atheists.

11/6/2006 3:17:47 PM

Quote :

"Hah, but they won't ever do that. Too many people "rely" on the myth. Same thing with "God"."

Wrong

it is entirely possible to do one, while entirely not within the realm of reality to do the other.

11/6/2006 3:20:12 PM

"Huh? I always thought quite a few people believed in a God that "set up" the Universe and never mucked with it again."

I think more people think of a god who either uses a lighting bolt crafted by a cyclopes as a weapon during times of war, or a god who takes the form of a flaming shrub, or a god who put a child in a women to grow up to guide and save his creations, or a god communicates with his prophets, or a god who rides around on a giant eagle beast to get around inside of creation.

There are a few of the people you describe. But the majority of people who believe in god, believe in one who mucks around occasionally. I doubt scientists who don't believe in god are giving your notion of god as much consideration as the majority's notion of god.

11/6/2006 3:23:17 PM

Quote :

"Spinoza was not a Deist, which is what you're referring to in the last post though, McDanger. "

Of course he wasn't, did I imply that he was?

Quote :

"There are a few of the people you describe. But the majority of people who believe in god, believe in one who mucks around occasionally. I doubt scientists who don't believe in god are giving your notion of god as much consideration as the majority's notion of god. "

Maybe its not the majority notion of God, but it seems as if this is the only arena it will be able to retreat into, at some point. I bet more people continue to move to this concept of God over time.

Either way, you're right in that we can refute specific religions based on their claims about factual, natural reality.

11/6/2006 3:26:04 PM

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Lord Kelvin of the British Royal Society, one of the nineteenth century's top experts on thermodynamics, 1890s).

11/6/2006 5:46:02 PM

^ And your point? Scientist love being wrong. This is the one thing that most religious types don't get. Science can be wrong, and since it can be wrong it can be right! If a religion cannot be wrong then it can never be right. A good scientist will pat you on the back if you can prove him wrong, because if you can prove him wrong then science has learned something new. This is how science works.

If creationists could prove evolution wrong they would get all future noble prizes, but they are up against 150 years of outstanding evidence including every strand of DNA on the planet.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 6:45 PM. Reason : sp]

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 6:46 PM. Reason : noob]

11/6/2006 6:45:28 PM

Quote :

"and this...is why atheists are silly"

as an atheist, i don't deny the existence of an "unmoved mover," i deny that there's one that gives a shit. and come one come all at convincing me otherwise.

11/6/2006 7:23:33 PM

how does that make you an atheist?

11/6/2006 10:14:01 PM

^yeah, my thoughts exactly. unseen aliens that do nothing with regards to nature aren't what we're talking about here.

11/6/2006 10:29:01 PM

^^^ maybe you should have consulted wiki before posting

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ^^^]

11/6/2006 10:29:19 PM

Quote :

"and come one come all at convincing me otherwise."

well, you've got us there, but I fail to see the point that is made here. you're saying that we cannot prove that an unseen force that does absolutely nothing does not exist, when to even be able to test that hypothesis, there would have to be SOMETHING that this thing could do in order to be detected, whether it be physical or devine.

11/6/2006 10:33:46 PM

^^^^^^ pyrolyte

Quote :

"This is the one thing that most religious types don't get."

You are not referencing me, are you?

^^^^^ Sounds more like agnosticism than atheism to me.

By the way, here's another more recent quotation from the world of "science" experts:

"There is no need for any individual to have a computer in their home" (Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977).

11/7/2006 12:16:38 AM

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981

He obviously has no credibility to work in any technical field, especially computing.

11/7/2006 12:33:19 AM