1. Comment #81399 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 4:58 pm

This is an example of equivocation. When a word has more than one meaning and the separate meanings are used interchangeably.
The theist is substituting the religious meaning of faith, trust that a supernatural entity exists without corroborated evidence, for another meaning, faith as ordinary belief that is reasonalbe and has evidence.
Scientific claims are tested and when found to be wanting reformulated or discarded. Thus any scientific claim or theory that has stood the test of time, such as evolution has been rigourously tested and subject to all manner of attempts at debunking. The fact that evolution is regarded as a resonable explanation is because it has been subjected to many tests, fits the evidence and has great explanatory power of natural phenomena that we observe. With all this, belief in evolution is no more a matter of faith than belief that you were born. You probably don't remember being born, but it's a well enough evidenced process that you can reasonably believe you were due to other peoples reports who were there or have seen a birth, your own knowledge of human reproduction, photos etc. There is strong corroborating evidence behind well known scientific claims which makes belief in the claims reasonable.
Religious faith has no evidence that cannot be explained another way, is not subject to rigourous scrutiny and is not falsifiable. For example, you may feel god speaks to you, but this is a feeling that exists in your mind and is not evidence of god. You have to consider all the possibilities, which is the most likely and which has the most corroborating evidence. Something which religious faith militates against. Religious faith is the opposite of faith in a scientific claim.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #81413 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Bullshit! Science does not make claims without corroborating evidence (there is no faith). Religion needs faith because nothing in reality supports it.

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #81553 by Theocrapcy on October 24, 2007 at 10:41 pm

There is nothing wrong with having faith or belief when it is reasonable. I believe that the light in the fridge will come on when I open the door, but if it doesn't I have faith in knowing the cause of its failure. This is reasonable. However, if I make the claim the Earth is only six thousand years old because the bible suggests it, in the face of all the contrary evidence, I have nothing but faith to rely upon.

Religion requires faith, science delivers us from its necessity.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

4. Comment #81605 by Vardu on October 25, 2007 at 12:46 am

I think that a distinction must be made between rational and irrational faith.
For instance, I've never been to or laid eyes on New York, but I have faith - based on an abundance and a variety of evidence - that it exists. This, to me, is an example of rational faith.

On the other hand, the faith that people have, say, that Jesus rose from the dead, which is not based on any evidence whatsoever, is irrational.

So, science may, indeed, make faith claims, but the nature of the faith is rational.

I think the same distinctions can be made between rational and irrational belief, rational and irrational authority.

Other Comments by Vardu

5. Comment #81655 by 601 on October 25, 2007 at 2:16 am

Science began with a few axioms (true/false, sets, etc.) added a few principals of logic and the scientific method (think, test, rinse, repeat).

One might consider this much an act of faith. But after trying it a few billion times and getting spectacularly useful results, the experience becomes the evidence, and the faith unnecessary.

There is still of course the meta jump (to the supernatural), we can't disprove that a hacker from CE 3001 built a sub-quantum computer simulation to preserve the universe digitally and then set the clock back to see if history would repeat itself.

Other Comments by 601

6. Comment #81693 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 3:40 am

I think BAEOZ stated most of the counter argument. I would add the following:

In science the conclusion or the statement comes at the end, it is the end of the argument. In religion it is the beginning. Therefore, in science there is no a priori knowledge, all claims are based on previous testing and observations and these claims can be changed if additional observation comes in. Religion starts with the claim and never changes it, regardless of any new knowledge that might be acquired. Changing your mind is a virtue in science, in religion it is a flaw.

Other Comments by dinamo02

7. Comment #81756 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 6:16 am

You cant exchange 'belief' and 'faith'.

Do we play peek-a-boo with babies because they lack 'faith'? No. We do it because they lack the concept of object permanence. They don't have that 'belief' about the world yet.

Beliefs are ideas about the world, whether they correspond to reality or not

Faith is maintaining those ideas IN SPITE OF the fact that they don't correspond to what your senses tell you about the world.

We should stop letting the faith heads interchange the two

Other Comments by JerryD385

8. Comment #81758 by notsobad on October 25, 2007 at 6:17 am

Theocrapcy, don't turn this into semantics debate, because that's one of the last hiding places of theists in debates.

For practical reasons, when debating religion, meaning of the word faith should be 'believing in something there is no evidence for'. This is after all the meaning the Bible itself and the Catholic Church (the first church/denomination, yes?) gave it.

Other Comments by notsobad

9. Comment #81869 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:22 am

"Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims"

Yep, but let's compare the number of faith-claims made by each:

Science:
1. Inductive reasoning is valid. That is, the past is a good predictor of the future.

Religion:
1. There is a God
2. God is omnipotent
3. God is omniscient
4. God is omnibenevolent
5. God in omnific
6. God cares about Its creation
7. Humans are of particular interest to God
8. In addition to all that we can observe, God created Heaven and Hell
9. God has a list of rules that must be followed
10. That God had one major earthly representative
11. God wrote a book
...
...and on and on and on.

The difference is that Religion is made up almost entirely of faith claims whereas science seeks to reduce the number of faith-claims (we call them 'assumptions' in science) it incorporates and at root, there is only one.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

10. Comment #82062 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:49 pm

"Religion uses faith, Science uses axioms. There is a difference."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

11. Comment #82417 by Spinoza on October 26, 2007 at 9:04 am

Um, Mewtwo_X. That is false.

An axiom is just an unargued foundational assumption.

There are loads of theologians who use axioms in their arguments... (i.e. the axiom that there has to be a solution to an infinite regress.... which I think is false, but anyway... it's one that is used).

Using axioms doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

The answer to this topic is simple:

1. BAEOZ is sort of right. There are several meanings to the word "faith". Religious FAITH can mean EITHER "the leap of faith" (which was NOT first used by Kierkegaard, but by Jacobi) away from the problems of philosophical dogmatism (that is, Spinozism), or "THE faith", meaning "the acts of worship". The latter does not REQUIRE faith in the former sense... one could be an atheist and still act religiously.

2. By definition Science does not operate on faith, or make claims which rest on faith... but the very opposite... The scientist operates under the assumption that everything he is saying is falsifiable. (at least, since Popper).

The way religion uses "faith" is as a method of arriving at a solution without doing the work.

E.g.

An example of faith: The Crucifixion and miracle of the Resurrection of Christ are the gift of salvation for all those who accept it.

There is no way of PROVING that one's "soul" is "saved" merely by "accepting" Christ (as Saviour).

It is BY DEFINITION an article of faith... and is so central to Christianity that if you don't believe in it, you aren't a Christian.

On the other hand, let's use evolution as the example. The Scientist is not told "accept what we tell you as fact, or you cannot call yourself a scientist", and it isn't a case that evolution is "unprovable". On the contrary, the evidence can be arranged into a solid deductive proof for the evolution of life on Earth by natural selection (etc.)

This proof is not a guarantor of ABSOLUTE truth, which is to say, it is not meant to be assented to "in faith", but is meant to be subjected to rigorous testing, analysis, and the evidence.

It just so happens that certain scientific propositions are so well supported that the likelihood of their being disproved is near zero... but, of course, it is not QUITE zero.

And that is the difference.

Other Comments by Spinoza

12. Comment #82467 by SirMoogie on October 26, 2007 at 11:51 am

I must highlight sidfaiwu's post. It is important for atheists to realize science has its faith-based propositions. However, the proposition in question is considered self-evident. A theist could disagree, and I've met my share that have started a debate pointing out this faith-based premise in science, but they cannot deny that they operate under its influence. The everyday decisions that they make use induction. From eating to nourish the body, to driving their cars to achieve rapid transportation, to sleeping to replenish their energy. No one waits until they deductively prove that these things will accomplish their previously observed results, they do them because they have always accomplished these goals. It's simply hypocritical for a theist to criticize the very self-evident proposition they live by.

It is also at this point that we can employ Occam's Razor. It is favorable to have a minimal set of faith-based beliefs.

Other Comments by SirMoogie

13. Comment #83022 by spiderdancer on October 28, 2007 at 3:19 pm

NO. Scientific claims require evidence not faith. They will be thrown out if they don't fit the evidence, cannot be tested or contain unnecessary elements that don't add to their predictive power.

Religious claims, on the other hand, are generally not testable and unparsimonious. A believer must have faith as there is no objective basis for choosing one religious claim ahead of its rivals.


Other Comments by spiderdancer

14. Comment #83030 by Quine on October 28, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I posted a comment on the belief thread that could have gone here, as it continues with the equivocation observation of BAEOZ.




Other Comments by Quine

15. Comment #83124 by scooternyc on October 29, 2007 at 2:29 am

"Faith is based on the absence of evidence. Science is based on evidence reaching a conclusion."


"Science is humble to say it doesn't know everything and is still searching. Religion is arrogant to say that it knows everything and needs to look no further."

Other Comments by scooternyc

16. Comment #83305 by cdhabecker on October 29, 2007 at 3:07 pm

D'Souza:
Science is based on 3 assumptions for which it can offer no explanation.
1. The universe is rational.
2. The rationality of the universe is comprehensible in the language of mathematics.
3. The rules of the universe are comprehensible to us.

He also goes on about how there was nothing in our experience or pre-Christian philosophy to give us the idea that the universe is rational or comprehensible. He finally attacks inductive reasoning.

Rebuttal:
First of all, what kind of pervasive, never-rational experience do you think humans had 2,000 years ago? Did the sun not rise and set every day, did rivers not always flow downhill instead of uphill? People have always experienced abundant, comprehensive evidence of predictability in nature; this is observable fact. Attempting to explain this predictability in detail based on more observable fact is called science. Choosing to call it divine intent rather than seeking an explanation is called religion.

As for #2, it is false to say that science insists that our mathematics are sufficient to describe nature. On the contrary, our observations lead to the invention of mathematics; thus it is not surprising that they do a good job of describing our observations. When a person observes that the sun appears overhead once every 24 hours, he is speaking in elementary mathematics. When observations of natural phenomena such as quantum mechanics surpassed our then-current mathematics, science invented improved mathematics.

#3 is similarly false: there is no scientific rule that says that science necessarily must be able to explain everything. Science aims to explain observations to the best of its ability. Science has already proven itself capable of explaining many natural phenomena to an extent that is demonstrably useful and orders of magnitude more impressive than biblical knowledge.

As for inductive reasoning, I refer to Comment #12, above, by SirMoogie. I add that science isn't trying to hide the fact that its theories have not been tested in every conceivable time and place. A look at "inductive reasoning" on wikipedia will show that this is a lively topic.

But not to worrry -- D'Souza tells us unequivocally that the universe is rational and that he knows the source of that rationality on a personal basis.

Other Comments by cdhabecker

17. Comment #83356 by octopus on October 29, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Could you give me an example of a faith claim made by science?

I think they refer to what sidfaiwu mentioned earlier (that is if I take "faith" to mean "initial assumption", although there are some good posts here clarifying syntax and meaning):
Inductive reasoning is valid. That is, the past is a good predictor of the future. (deduction is tied to induction, as it is validated in real world)

I could also add assumption that one is of sound mind and does not live in virtual reality (it is something more discussed in philosophy).

What is really funny is that religion also relies on all initial assumptions made by science - in most cases. Then it adds its own set, inconsistent and excessive number of assumptions. What follows is very much case of "pick-and-choose (your own)" assumptions as you please, depending on what you are trying to achieve (a bit like politics). The price to pay is lack of consistency, but this have never been major worry of religion. I am afraid religion has never got rid of "end justifies the means".

Other Comments by octopus

18. Comment #83369 by lpetrich on October 29, 2007 at 8:24 pm

As cdhabecker has noted, Dinesh D'Souza has recently claimed that science requires belief in:

1. The universe is rational.
2. The rationality of the universe is comprehensible in the language of mathematics.
3. The rules of the universe are comprehensible to us.

and that these notions were the result of Xianity. This is historical illiteracy if not an outright lie. Dinesh D'Souza ought to be familiar with ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, many of whom anticipated all three claims.

Yes, *all three* of them.

Consider that Pythagoras and his followers considered mathematics to be the Key to the Universe, and they went off the deep end of mystical notions about numbers while doing some good mathematics, including discovering some Satanic Verses: irrational numbers.

And consider the sort of Universe the Atomists and Epicureans believed in: strikingly close to what modern science has discovered about the Universe. Richard Carrier once wrote about Epicurus vs. Mohammed, and showed that by Bible-science and Koran-science standards, Lucretius's On the Nature of Things was greatly successful at anticipating the discoveries of modern science.

And science does not assume that the Universe is "rational" or comprehensible or describable with mathematics; it treats such claims as hypotheses to be tested -- hypotheses that have been enormously successful in some cases.

Other Comments by lpetrich

19. Comment #83950 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 31, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Science says that if a circle's diameter is 1, then its circumference is 3.1415926535897932.., and this is proven every time you measure any circle. Any circle.

Religion's answer to this is in the Bible, is revealed magically in the hands of the fellow to my right (your left) and is to be taken on faith as the Word of God (theirs).

Measure by faith and you will not fill your cup. Measure by science and die in your unbelief.

But, until then, at least you will get your sums right.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

20. Comment #84929 by killer_rabbit79 on November 4, 2007 at 9:20 am

Yes there is a small amount of faith required to believe in the scientific method but it is nothing compared to the amount of faith required to believe in a religion. Since most of science is based on evidence, there is not enough faith involved for it to even be worth mentioning.

Also, prettygoodformonkeys, the reason measuring by faith will not fill your cup is because you don't have anything to fill it with, not because your cup is infinitely huge, jerk. Also, if by magic, you mean Photoshop than I agree completely. Maybe you should get a reality check or something.

Other Comments by killer_rabbit79

21. Comment #85658 by Dace on November 6, 2007 at 5:29 pm

"It is favorable to have a minimal set of faith-based beliefs." - SirMoogie.
I can see the point of this, but I wonder whether a theist might combat it by proclaiming that he only makes one assumption: that what to him seems self-evident is also true. For the atheist, the basic laws of logic, induction, reliability of perception, etc. will be admissible since these things are self-evident (though they will not always deliver truth).
But the theist adds more on the basis of this single assumption - it seems to him God exists therefore he does, that absolute good and evil exist, and so on.

On another note, we need some way of organizing these debate points - they will simply develop into threads otherwise. Perhaps each could have a moderator, who summarizes the points at the top of the page. Also useful, though it would take some work, might be to develop an 'argument tree' - showing the possible responses and replies to be made, depending upon the tack one's opponent takes. The summary points could then be linked to examples in transcripts of real debates...
That's a ton of work. But it would be useful.

Other Comments by Dace

22. Comment #86255 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 8, 2007 at 8:59 pm

20. Comment #84929 by killer_rabbit79

Also, prettygoodformonkeys, the reason measuring by faith will not fill your cup is because you don't have anything to fill it with, not because your cup is infinitely huge, jerk. Also, if by magic, you mean Photoshop than I agree completely. Maybe you should get a reality check or something.

"Jerk"?

Read it again, fuckwit; we actually agree on this, you just have no sense of irony.

I'll sound it out for you: if you use the biblical pi, you can't even fill a cylinder ("will not fill your cup"). If you use science, though, not faith, it will work, but you won't go to a (fictitious) Heaven.

It's just math, and the bible (faith) is wrong.

Is English your second language?

(and it wasn't Photoshop, it was Paint. It's free.)

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

23. Comment #86260 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 8, 2007 at 9:20 pm

And, by the way, like the Doctor, my cup is infinitely huge.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

24. Comment #90705 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 7:22 am

I think faith is not about claims, but about the relationship - this is more likely TRUST PERSON than knowing the correct answers. Only the God knows. See the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. --- And science... science is not about faith, but about proposing, hypothesis making, testing and falsifying. Scientific theories are instruments for life.

Other Comments by BorisCvek

25. Comment #90951 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 26, 2007 at 7:19 pm

BorisCvek:

...faith is not about claims....Only the God knows. See the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians

This claims that there is a relationship. A relationship with what?

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

26. Comment #91032 by BorisCvek on November 27, 2007 at 3:06 am

This claims that there is a relationship. A relationship with what?


Boris: Of course, with the God.

Other Comments by BorisCvek

27. Comment #91036 by epeeist on November 27, 2007 at 3:33 am

Comment #81869 by sidfaiwu

Science:
1. Inductive reasoning is valid. That is, the past is a good predictor of the future.

To quote another poster - not since Popper.

Science doesn't use inductive, but deductive logic. As such theories are considered contingently valid, i.e. the theory may not be sound.

Continued critical tests of a theory that do not falsify it add to the corroboration of the theory, but do not prove it true.

Other Comments by epeeist

28. Comment #125871 by g czobel on February 12, 2008 at 7:47 am

Quite true!! But let's put this one to bed once and for all by examining the details and the completely divergent entailments.

Mathematics and logical inference is at the core of science and reason.

In the practice of mathematics and logic, it is recognised that one cannot proceed anywhere without starting with unproven assumptions - axioms or postulates; otherwise, one is forced to engage in a hopeless, infinite regress of proofs. The fundamental rules of inference are therefore assumed to be the case, and all is built from there. This is not seen as a problem, as axioms are usually so simple, narrow in scope, precise and self evident, that there is only the tiniest possible leap of faith needed to prime the mechanism! The rest of the structure is bootstrapped from there, since these simple postulated methods of inference are applied repeatedly and entirely consistently to build a structure of any level of complexity.

Moreover, and crucially, as a constant means of verification, when one builds upon these axioms and the results correlate successfully and consistently with the material universe, as is the case in mathematics and the sciences which it supports, then this provides confidence that the initial axiomatic leap of faith was well founded indeed. In countless daily events, the deductions based on math and science are constantly "tested" and confirmed even if these events are not intended as tests. Millions of buildings continue indefinitely to remain erect, testament to materials science and the physics of gravity, millions of vehicles function as designed, testament to materials science, thermodynamics, laws of motion, etc., enormous numbers of electrical circuitry operate in a consistent predictable manner without failure that is due to capricious changes in physical parameters, rules of logic, the charge of the electron, and so on, endlessly. If any of these fail at any time, the failure is invariably traced back to defects in design rather than defects in the underlying physical and mathematical basis. Such countless confirmations are about as close to solid evidence for this world view as is possible by induction.

However, this system is considered to be never final, always provisional, and this is considered as essential to the success of this system. No belief or conclusion in this system is considered verified once and for all and that applies to the initial axioms - i.e. alternatives to Euclid's 5th (parallel) postulate eventually leading to consistent non-Euclidian geometries. The primary considerations for utility and success of this world view are overall consistency, coherence, and correspondence with the observed world.

In comparison:

Religion, as a world view, is also based on articles of faith. But they are completely opposite in nature and approach to those of mathematics, reason and science. They are of the most complex nature and anything but self evident. The most important one is taking on faith the existence of a God who is imbued with certain attributes. This leap of faith is to start with the most complex and farfetched assumption possible rather than the simplest and most self evident. The need for a God who is of the greatest possible complexity is a consequence of the religious view that drives the dismissal of evolution; that is, that something simple cannot create something more complex. Since God is assumed to be the creator of the universe, he must be more complex than anything in the universe, perhaps infinitely complex since he is postulated to have other infinite attributes (omni this and that ). Since the attributes of God are postulated to be unbounded, this implies that they have universal explanatory power. In fact, once one makes this entirely encompassing leap of faith, there is nothing left to explain because the postulate inherently, by dint of its infinite complexity and power, contains everything. Thus, although the explanatory power of this leap of faith is all encompassing, it really explains nothing in a practical, worldly sense. If everything in the world is contingent on God's infinite powers and will - which are claimed to be hopelessly beyond our comprehension - there is nothing left to explain.


The belief structure based on this incredible leap of faith is never submitted to the test of consistency. In fact, it requires constant apologetics (hand waving) to paper over the endless blatant inconsistencies and contradictions. But since God's postulated attributes have universal explanatory power, this is never perceived to be a problem.

There is no constant empirical confirmation and verification process of the claims in this belief system. Since the initial gargantuan leap of faith with its infinite, unbounded attributes can be contrived to explain away everything one observes, the claims are unfalsifiable, since any observation can be made to fit, even inconsistent ones. i.e an event which appeared to be (interpreted as) a "miracle" was observed - "There, you see, God exists!": on the other hand, a hoped for miracle was not forthcoming - "God, in his infinite wisdom, has his own reasons which are beyond our mere understanding". This system is thus final and unchangeable right from the start.

A rational person can readily see that the two approaches above are entirely different in nature, in fact opposite, even if one can truthfully, if only superficially, make the claim that both systems are based on leaps of "faith". To make such a claim as is put forth by this debate point is linguistic confusion and quibbling at its worst.

Other Comments by g czobel

29. Comment #130273 by martino on February 20, 2008 at 7:58 am

No science makes falsifiable claims, only religion makes faith claims

Other Comments by martino

30. Comment #132523 by Prom_STar on February 24, 2008 at 11:13 pm

The argument that science requires faith can stand only on the argument "there is no absolute certainty." Interestingly enough, though, it is the scientist, not the theologian, that embraces this idea. Science cannot prove. It can only test and create tools (theories) that produce results. Rational minds ask themselves, often, an essential question: what if I'm wrong. And they do so knowing it is entirely possible, if not always probably, that they are indeed completely wrong. The rational atheist has to admit that it is possible that there is a god. But until evidence can be put forward that makes him more than an unnecessary premise, we will remove him from consideration.

Other Comments by Prom_STar

31. Comment #141978 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:50 pm

The argument is correct. Science and religion both make faith claims, but the faith claims they make are fundamentally different from each other.

Science takes it on faith that what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell, are what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell. Science takes it on faith that we can figure out what's going on around us through use of our senses.

Science does not, however, take it on faith that there is a given state of affairs beyond that. Religion, however, makes concrete claims about what it can't see, hear, taste, touch and smell, and takes it on faith that those concrete claims are true.

Other Comments by prospero811

32. Comment #161268 by jpollard on April 15, 2008 at 4:50 am

Faith is 'something' that you believe without having any personal experience of the 'thing'. Religion happily allows such a position - in fact it demands it. Science on the other hand precludes such a proposition - in fact it demands it.

Other Comments by jpollard

33. Comment #171756 by Converse02 on April 28, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Science is a faith with evidence.
Religion is a faith without.

Theists trick you because faith can mean "to believe,"
they will say "you have faith in science!"
To say you don't have faith in science is to say you don't believe in science, which is untrue.

We have faith in science because of the evidence.
Just be sure to add the word "evidence" in the same sentence to avoid the trap.

Other Comments by Converse02

34. Comment #176173 by Chato on May 6, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Science does make faith claims and at the core of modern science is one of the biggest faith claims ever made. As a former applied chemistry student I discovered in the course of my studies that at the core of all matter science can find nothing but pure energy. A Hydrogen atom has nothing that we would call "matter" at its core. So then how does pure energy 'become' matter? The theory is that there is an invisible stream running through the universe and when energy comes into contact with this stream it somehow transforms into the solid matter that makes up the universe. Funnily enough - this stream has never been found. Why? Because it is as ludicrous an idea as the idea that the world is a few thousand years old and that Adam and Eve were sharing the garden of Eden with dinosaurs. The missing ingredient is spirit and actually matter is nothing more than an illusion. Buddha said the physical world was both an illusion and real (some of his disciples felt this meant life was pointless and committed suicide when he first explained this concept). I cannot claim to fully understand what this means but maybe only someone who has achieved enlightenment can truly understand? I don't know. Science should keep trying to understand, but the missing ingredient is spirit. Until science learns how to measure spirit it will not be able to overcome this fundamental hurdle to understanding the true nature of the universe which is what most of us actually hope to achieve.

Other Comments by Chato

35. Comment #185554 by oswald on May 28, 2008 at 4:11 am

Hi guys.

In my opinion there are too many opinions in this crazy world.

lets step back a little for a moment.

Somehow we are "conscious" on a "planet" we've come to call "earth".

There seams to be a whole lot of really evil stuff going on in this world and we can't help but try and blame everything but ourselves.

Call it what you will.

This place is insane and none of us here have any way of proving to the world what is going to happen once your body dies.

So please, if science doesn't require faith, prove to me and to the rest of the world, with out a doubt, that this world is no phenomena and that there is no way that there could be a creator.




Yeah, well thats my opinion, and i stick to it, just as you will to yours. But somehow it makes me feel better having said it, regardless of the notice people take.

Other Comments by oswald