Myweponsg00d

The difference between my assumption and your assumption is one is impossible to test, the other isn't. When an assumption can't be tested, its beyond the realm of math or science, and becomes philosophy or religion. You're saying that to answer the question we should just test it...? But that seems rather dangerous for you, as one of the possiblities is death... You need to make a decision, do you want shot or dont you? You say one possibility is that you die...but consider my alternative. Why should you make a choice based on what you think will happen? My choice is equally likely and cannot be disproven. Since both of our predictions are based on assumptions then you could really make either choice; both choices are equally respectable. Why should you go with your prediction over my prediction?

You again seem to be confused on what atheism even is. An atheist doesn't look at religion and say like "Well, this is good, this is bad, the moral part is good, some of these morals are prejudice..." etc. The only trouble atheists have with religion is simply if a religion encourages belief in some supernatural explanation for real things that happen. Thats it. If someone wants to be a Christian, but interprets the events in the Bible figuratively -- thats perfectly fine. Hell, Einstein was "Jewish". I say "Jewish" because he certainly did not assert that an intelligent creator was responsible for the creation of the universe or for the events that happen within. Nor did he believe that the soul of a person is an actual thing that exists and goes on to actually exist in some place called an afterlife. But, he adhered to Judaism as a source of moral guidance and as a community that he could support and turn to for support. Atheists are not necessarily wholly against religion. They are only against the theistic aspects of religion, that is, the aspects of religion that affirm the existence of a deity. Theres much more to religion than whether or not a deity actually exists. If you have actually read any works by atheists, they seem to have been from books that attempt to make some type of moral/amoral good/back argument for atheism or against religion. If you would like to read a book that is a pure commentary on the essence of atheism, I would suggest starting with The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. This is a very good place for somebody to start if they actually want to UNDERSTAND what atheism is even about. Whats up bro? Not gonna respond to me any more? You still want to assert that all beliefs that are based on assumptions are equal? Am I ever gonna get any closure on this argument or are you just going to plug your ears and say "nananananana if I cant hear you I'm not wrong!"

What makes you assume that I'm the only special case for your gunshot hypothesis? Because you want me to disprove your hypothesis? Troll harder next time. What do you mean what MAKES me assume it? It is a fundamental belief of mine. What makes a mathematician believe that 0!=1? Nothing. It is an assumption we make to build upon the system. So since my shooting hypothesis and the field of mathematics both boil down to fundamental assumptions, they are both equally respectable. Everyone! Hear this! According to wep, I can't be killed by a gunshot wound to the head! Don't I feel special. I fail to see what you think the problem is. Your belief boils down to assumption. My belief boils down to assumption. Doesn't that mean both of our ideas should be treated with equal dignity? Isn't that what you said?

What makes you assume that I'm the only special case for your gunshot hypothesis? Because you want me to disprove your hypothesis? Troll harder next time. What do you mean what MAKES me assume it? It is a fundamental belief of mine. What makes a mathematician believe that 0!=1? Nothing. It is an assumption we make to build upon the system. So since my shooting hypothesis and the field of mathematics both boil down to fundamental assumptions, they are both equally respectable.

Why would it have to apply to the entire population? My assumption is that it only applies to you. Yet you assume it would apply to all humans. Would it also apply to animals? You can't even prove that shooting you in the head would kill you, now you are claiming it would kill ANYONE? Your beliefs are based at the core on assumptions that you cannot empricially prove. Mine are also based on unprovable assumptions. Since we both make assumptions at some level, I fail to see how your system for predicting gunshot wounds beats my system.

Who are you to call it stupid? It makes sense to me. I know in my heart that that prediction is the truth. You can't disprove me and therefore our ideas should be treated with equal warrant. Alright, so let me point a gun to your head and shoot you. No objections? This is YOUR head we are talking about. It is my belief that a gun pointed to YOUR head will not fire and kill you but instead cause you to finally find your true love. Don't bring my head into it, my head is completely different from yours.

Who are you to call it stupid? It makes sense to me. I know in my heart that that prediction is the truth. You can't disprove me and therefore our ideas should be treated with equal warrant.

You're wrong though. I can assign a weight assignment, statistically speaking the probability that each of the events are going to occur, and sum them. If you hold a gun up to my head, and pull the trigger, one of several things may happen: Case 1 - There is no bullet in the gun. Case 2 - There is a bullet in the gun. In Case 1, there is some percentage that you forgot or just didn't put a bullet in the chamber. This outcome is negative, no positive. If you pulled the trigger, I'd be freaked out and jumpy, emotionally distraught with good reason. Even if I had no emotion this case at best is neutral. In Case 2, there are two more cases. Case 2.1 - The bullet is a dud, Case 2.2 - The bullet goes off. I can find the probability that the bullet is a dud through repeat testing, in fact most bullets are rated this way. 2.1 is slim to none. The outcome in 2.1 is the same though as in 1, and I'd be freaked out. Negative outcome, neutral at best. In Case 2.2, there are several more cases. 2.2.1 - Your aim sucks, and you miss. 2.2.2 - You shoot me. What's the probability you miss? Don't know, but the outcome is the same as 2.1, and its Negative, neutral at best. In 2.2.2, there are even more cases. Case 2.2.2.1 - I survive with half my face being blown off Case 2.2.2.2 - I die. Both of those to me are negative, in the extreme. You argue that there might be more cases, some of which are "positive," for some people. If you ask those people if they want to be shot in the head, they may say yes, but they'll have different reasons (like they're tripping on acid). When you sum up the probabilities multiplied by their expected results (positive or negative), the expected result is grossly negative. You don't even have to make a guess at the probabilities for any one of those outcomes, all the expected results for each probability are negative. There is absolutely no positive for me to be shot in the head, which is why without having ANY certainty in the matter at all, I can tell you I don't want you to hold a gun to my head and shoot. I don't see how that example, with a thousand or more variables, is the same saying there is no proof for the axiom against triviality. Why does it upset you that math, at it's very core, is a set of large assumptions? I'm horribly confused. You are making your decision based on math? Probability? But that just works on a set of underlying assumptions. Why wouldn't you be equally warranted in choosing to let me shoot you? All you have to do is make the assumption that a magical force in the universe will always keep you alive. Both decisions boil down to assumptions so why aren't both decisions equally plausible?

I absolutely cannot believe that we are back at this again. Do you want me to shoot you in the head? Do you? No. You don't. Why? Because you think a bullet will come out, enter your skull, and kill you. THIS IS NOT A FACT. The only time it would become a fact is once it has already happened. Before I shoot you, you do not have PROOF that you WILL get shot. It is impossible to PROVE that any future events will ever happen. So...you could make another "guess" at what might happen. Maybe you assume that when I shoot you in the head, the bullet will never enter your head, but instead it will transform into a horse and a carriage and carry you off into the sunset to unite you with the love of your life. Here are the two predictions: 1.) The bullet will come out and kill you 2.) The bullet will unite you with the love of your life. Both predictions require assumptions that cannot be proven. You're telling me that either prediction is equally respectable?

Absolutely agreed. However, it also doesn't mean that it didn't necessarily take a God to create it. I'm not claiming Christianity is inherently right with its views of how the world came to be. You choose to believe that the official scientific explanation that it randomly came from nowhere is more plausible. You have a huge problem understanding the difference between something having a view on something or something not making any claims. All that is currently "accepted" as scientific theory is the "big bang" during the first moments of our universe. What does science claim as truth for what happened BEFORE then? NOTHING. The scientific claim isn't "The universe randomly came from nowhere." The scientific claim is...well...nothing really. Science does not comment on things which it does not understand. Right now, as far as what is concidered to be "before the big bang", science says "We don't have enough evidence yet to make a claim." There is no claim. Just like how atheism has "no claim" when it comes to morals. The only thing that an atheist is is a person who doesn't buy into the "god theory" due to a lack of evidence. Science DOESNT KNOW what happened before the big bang. And just like other things we dont know -- we don't pretend to know either. Yes, it is a very interesting question to know where we came from, but that doesn't mean we should just start making up stories. There are plenty of questions that we don't know the answer to. How do we cure AIDS? How can we make inter-solar travel feasible for humans? How are we going to sustain our society once fossil fuels are depleted? These are all excellent, important, and interesting questions. But, do we run around saying "I think GOD will cure AIDS!" or "I think our answer to the energy crisis will come to me in a message from beyond!" No. We just say "...boy...I dont know! Guess we better try to figure it out." Atheists approach the creation question just like...well...just like everybody else approaches every other question that we try to answer about the physical world. With science. Again just because a guess cannot be proven wrong doesn't mean it is a useful guess for factual information. I could say "I think the Earth orbits the Sun because a large invisible man lives inside the sun and he is controlling the Earth with undetectable psychic powers" This cannot be proven wrong. Should we add this claim to our current understanding of why the Earth orbits the Sun? How can you even know what the world would be like if religion hadn't developed? You can't answer this question. Maybe if religion had never developed, people would turn to philosophy to answer the question of "Why should I _______ ?" Maybe schools of philosophy would be open all around the world to take the place of churches. To me, this system would be a lot better, because people might end up developing all of religion's good things without developing the bad.

Regardless of whether or not any atheist has ever said anything pro sex or against sex, it is ABSOLUTELY irrelevant. There is no figurehead for atheism. There are no moral teachings of atheism. If someone who loses their religion now does different things...I wouldn't have considered those things to actually be a part of the person's "morality" to begin with. Morality is what you think is right and wrong, not what you are only doing out of fear. If someone threatens to kill me unless I have sex with my mother, that doesn't mean incest is now part of my morality. It means I did it because I thought I had to. If someone is abstaining from drinking alcohol only because they are trying to "follow the rules" then I wouldn't even consider that person to be acting morally. Your morals are your beliefs. I believe in sex before marriage. I believe in use of contraceptives. I think abortion is absolutely disgusting. I am split on gay marriage. I think gays should be able to live together and have all the same benefits that a married couple would have, but I don't think it makes any sense to have them participate in a "holy" marriage or whatever. To be honest I don't care enough to really even be knowledgable about the subject. But thats okay...cause I really don't want to open that can of worms in here... I don't think that any of these ideas of mine have anything to do with the existence or non existence of a diety. I totally disagree. Just because I don't think a man in the sky is watching over me, that doesn't have any influence on my behavior. If you read any important works of philosophy such as Leviathan, there are many logical reasons for man to be moral without having anything to do with the great security camera in the sky. A person's morality largely stems from the lessons that he or she has learned during life, from parents, friends, relatives, and aquaintences. It is a lot more complicated than "Well, if its the word of God, I guess I'll do it" This isn't necessarily morality. I know of a few Christians who live according to "the rules" but don't actually agree with them. To me, this isn't actually morality. They arent doing what they believe is right; theyre doing what they're told to do just because they're afraid they'll go to hell.

Wh....wha....what....WHAT THE HELL? Y_guy I think you seem to be very confused about something. Atheists do not share "a view" on sex. Atheism is not a system of morals or anything like that. It is not an IMMORAL system. It is not a MORAL system. It doesn't tell you that everything is okay to do, it doesn't tell you that anything is bad to do. It has no comment. Atheism is not a religion or a belief system. Atheists are united by only one thing: the assertion that there is no need to believe in a god since there is no evidence to suggest that one exists. Thats it. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with moral views on sex, killing, stealing, or anything like that. Other than the fact that we aren't going to buy into theories that aren't backed by evidence, atheists have nothing in common. One athesit may support gay marriage, one may not. One atheist may support premarital sex, one may not. What we call "atheism" has absolutely no comment whatsoever on anything besides the nature of physical phenomenon. All moral and philosophical questions have absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Also...all of the links you posted have been written by people who have the same erroneous conception of what an atheist is. I have plenty of morals that most people would say are "conservative" and I am even a registered republican. One's moral beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with how you think the universe came to be. One's morality or lack of morality has nothing to do with atheism. There have been some terrible atheists in the past, lets pick one...say...Stalin? Stalin was an atheist, and he did many things that were bad. However...it isn't BECAUSE of atheism. Atheism is simply a statement of how you feel the origins of life came to be. Its kind of like if we said "Stalin had a moustache, moustaches are evil!" One really has nothing to do with the other.

I think its pretty cool to make the your first initial and surname initial really big and clear. Then make all of the other letters really tiny and impossible to read.

The idea of hell is meant to provide the comfort that bad things will come to people who do bad things -- that all people will get what they deserve. If it weren't for this idea, the world would be a lot scarier. Every minute of the day, you could be walking down the street and think "Any one of these people could just kill me right now...and maybe nothing bad will ever come to him." I mean yes, he would get jail and/or death, but if someone killed one of my family members, no death penalty or ammount of jail time would make me feel like justice was served. The idea of hell (Hell?) gives people the comfort that people just avoid doing bad things for some reason that is more powerful than any type of material punishment. Yes, we are in agreement then about this part: any person would be silly if he forced himself to ACTUALLY believe (as in, factual knowledge) that his coat was lucky. But even if you don't ACTUALLY believe that the coat is FACTUALLY lucky, it still can bring enjoyment in calling it your "lucky coat" right? I am suspecting that you would see no problem with this, but correct me if I am mistaken. Well, this is the same way I feel about religion. There are plenty of things I like about religion, but there are also plenty of things I dislike. The most frustrating thing is that the things I dislike (the "factual" claims that some religions make) could easily be wiped away from religion, and we could just be left with the good things about religion. You don't need to believe that a coat is "factually" lucky to recieve the psychological benefits from calling it a "lucky coat". Similarly, you don't really need to believe that a diety "factually" exists in order to reap the emotional benefits of taking a relgion. Hell, I would probably even take a religion if it didn't mean that people would probably make the false judgement that I factually believe in supernatural occurances.

Why not? I think that the idea could slowly be incorporated into society. We have plenty of things that we do for no reason that just make us feel good. Rituals, routines, good luck charms, things like saying "bless you" after you sneeze. Human ritual is a valuable and powerful part of our culture. Things like religion most certainly do have some things that are quite good...giving people some idea of moral standards, having post-death rituals to make the living relatives feel at ease. When family members die, I like having the funeral. I know that their soul isnt actually floating around anywhere. I know they arent in a better place now. But the ritual helps me say goodbye to this person, among other important social functions. Do you really think that if we tell people: "Hey...guess what, HELL ISNT REAL!" then all of a sudden the world would break out into chaos? I think it is a very good idea to just keep religion away from presenting "factual" information about the physical world. I totally think people would accept it. I mean, Catholicism is kind of getting there...They have basically decided to start accepting scientific findings and AFAIK they fully accept Darwin's theory of evolution. To me, this is a huge step in the right direction towards letting religion function for what it actually does, and letting science function for what it actually does. Can you imagine true death? Not existing anymore in any way shape or form? If so, does that scare you? I mean even non practicing christians believe in heaven and hell for the most part, true death is too scary for people to imagine, in that sense it is a comfort blanket whether you think of that intentionally or it just acts as one for you Seriously, this is one thing I have never understood. Why does death scare people? You're not gonna be around to know that you are dead... In fact I think it would be scarier to think that my soul would live on eternally. What if I went up to heaven and had to deal with some of the people who annoy the hell out of me? trollface.jpeg

Since you offered please answer the questions you can on my post on the bottom of page 7 I will answer, but you probably won't like my answer :wink: God is. God is everywhere and nowhere, all at once. God was before the beginning of time, will be after the end of time. If our universe has n dimensions, God resides in the n+1, not bound by the laws that we know. God is unimaginable, and awesome. God is love. God loves so much that He created everything. God loves us so much that He created us in His image, and He gave us free will. People ask the question can an infinite being create a rock that is too heavy to lift? The answer is yes, God created free will. God, in all his infinite might can't force me to chose Him, a paradox. God created everything, formed us in His image, and put us in the Garden of Eden. Our free will was we could chose to live happily forever, and stay away from the two trees, or we could chose something other than God. Our own misfortune, death and suffering, was created solely because our entire race as humans is sinful. God did not create sin, we did from our own free will. Why does it have to be a diety? If you just replace the idea of "God" with the idea of "something outside of our universe that has always existed, exists in the n+1 dimension, is uncomprehensible" then you end up at the same place. Why should it be an intelligent beings with thoughts, will, and plans? I understand that it makes you feel good, however we don't decide what reality is based on whether or not it makes people feel good. It might make someone feel good if they wear their "lucky coat" on a first date with a woman. Okay...thats fine. However, if we try to run tests on this coat and realize that its just any old coat, would you try to "deny" what science tells you and "have faith" that the coat is still lucky? I certainly hope not. I'm sure any reasonable adult would agree that a jacket is just a jacket, and does not actually cause good luck. As a matter of fact, this analogy is quite good. Lets say you have a "good luck charm". Now, I'm sure if someone asked you "Do you REALLY think this brings you good luck? Would you say that this luck actually exists?" Most people would probably say no, that a material item does not actually bring more luck. However, we might just do it anyway. Why? Just because it makes us feel good to say that we have a "good luck charm". You don't need to firmly "have faith" that the charm will bring you luck in order for you to be comforted by having the object. This is how I view religion's role in society. However, my only problem with it is that the "good luck charm" aspects of religion are often driven into young peoples' minds as being factual information. I would be totally content with a "religious" individual who says "Yes...I know theres no such thing as an afterlife. I know my father really won't live on forever. However, saying these words at his funeral are simply very comforting." Sort of the way that Einstein was "religious". It is common knowledge that Einsten was a "Jewish" man. However, did he really believe that an actual intelligent creator was responsible for the origins of the universe? No. He just turned to the parts of religion that help us to make sense of human morality and to be hopeful and thankful for the world around us.

If people actually interpreted religion in this way, and if most religious people didn't really think that a god actually EXISTS in the physical sense, then I wouldn't have much to say about religion. However, people largely take their religions completely literally and think that if they don't believe that a giant man in the sky is muddling in their daily affairs, then they will go to hell for rejecting their god. People are allowed to have beliefs about what is right and wrong; it is a rather arbitrary personal decision to decide whether you think something is moral or immoral. If religions JUST served to align people with moralities, thats fine. But people start to hold BELIEFS about the physical world...thats just silly and pointless. What does it give us to say that a god is behind some natural phenomenon?

I never claimed that "all assumptions are equally respectable," because some assumptions can be proved to be incorrect. The assumptions that can't be proved or disproved are equally respectable, however. If I hold a gun to your head and ask you "Do you want me to pull the trigger?" What is your response? Go ahead, disprove the money rain theory. Neither the money rain theory or the theory where you get shot and die are provable or disprovable.

No. Because when the question was first raised, it was answered with religion and not science. I just explained how science is a massive part of our culture today, while religion used to be. The 'where did we come from' question came from a long time ago, and it was answered with religion. Science provides an alternative. I prefer the scientific one but who are you or I to say which is better? It's a different context. See above. IT doesn't make sense because there is no philosophy behind an invisible teapot circling your head. Scientific based ideas can be disproven with science. Science is a different system to religion and philosophy which is why it cannot disprove it using science. Think about it: the only argument against a philosophy is a different philosophy. I agree, science cannot do anything with philosophical questions, because the field of philosophy is not physical or tangible. That's science's field. To answer questions we have about what happened, what happens, and what causes things to happen. Religion should not try to answer these questions. The origin of the universe most certainly is a scientific concept, just like the origin of something like Earth's magnetic field. I don't understand why religion should be able to answer some questions about the natural world but not all of them? After all, people once thought that things like the weather were directly caused by the wishes of gods. If someone insisted that you stop watching the channel 5 news for weather and instead pray to god for a vision...does that person have a valid point?

That's true but imagine where we would be now. We would still be drilling holes in people's heads to drive evil spirits away, etc. Even if modern medicine didn't use skull drilling, (it does) medicine advances are causing overpopulation which is creating bigger problems for humanity than holes in their skulls. You're missing the point. This might seem condescending and it's not my intention, but I think you're intelligent enough to wrap your head around what he's saying. It's not an easy concept to grasp, but it's accepted in the scientific community. This is the kind of thing that operators of the hadron collider, physics professors, and my astrogeek uncle regularly get together to talk about. Science, numbers and theories don't exist outside of our minds. We created it. If man had no existed to give labels and values to things, and point out consistencies, science wouldn't exist, yet the universe would continue as per usual. Think of gravity. If you hold up an object and let go, and it drops to the ground, that is an event. It's a physical thing that exists. Gravity as an idea, as a label, the notion that mass bends space time, does not. You can drop a second third forth and millionth ball and it will also probably fall at the same acceleration taking into account air friction. However we have only been looking for consistencies for a small amount of time, in a small part of the universe. It's a far from perfect system that works for us in this day and age. It has such a huge part of our culture that we accept it as fact. Importance is relative, and science not existing outside of our minds doesn't mean that it's not important to us. Back in our earlier days, the same thing applied to religion. A god didn't carry the sun across the sky during the day, but that didn't make it any less important. This is why you can never use science to disprove religion. You can't use science to disprove philosophy. They are different systems. Science does a lot of things for us, but the only thing it has actually proven, is that we know very little about the universe. You say we have no reason to believe in a deity. Lots of people say they do. Importance is relative, and if a deity doesn't exist outside of our minds, that doesn't make it any less important either. Then why the hell don't we have religious explanations for freaking everything? Why don't we say that the elementary particles holding things together are little green men? CAUSE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE There are lots of things that are still unknown to science. However, the ONLY ONE that people think it is okay to say "god did it" is the creation. WHY? Why does this physical phenomenon get special treatment from religion? Simply because billions of people in history have held the same superstition that has absolutely NO evidence going for it? We currently dont have a cure for AIDS. Imagine what it would be like if doctors said "Well, we dont know what the cure is, so for now lets invent some story that supposedly might cure it. The AIDS virus is composed of millions of little demons and to get rid of it you have to say prayers." Its ludicrous! Yet when it comes to origins, religion is supposedly fine. "This is why you can never use science to disprove religion." Yet again...NOTHING CAN BE DISPROVEN. However, so what?? This doesn't mean that everything makes sense to believe in. If I say that there is an invisible undetectable teapot circling my head, you cannot disprove me. But does that mean that it makes sense to live your life BELIEVING my story? Why are you trying to fallaciously argue over petty stuff that is irrelevant to the point I made, and the topic at hand? Two events occurring are not equiprobable even if assumptions are made for both. Lets assume I buy a powerball ticket, and lets assume I roll fair six-sided die. The probability that I roll a six is MUCH greater than the probability that I win the powerball (on the order of fifty million times more likely). Both events required assumptions, and both are not equiprobable. Regardless of the assumptions that must be made for certain viewpoints, the fact remains that for math or science to say anything meaningful about anything, certain beliefs must be established, which cannot be proved. This is the exact same for religion. By simultaneously saying that religion is stupid because it can't prove the fact that God exists while math, science, and logic are somehow more intelligent because the entire subject is proven is short-sighted and ridiculous. You seem to have missed the point that I made so I will restate it. You think that it is short-sighted and ridiculous of me to discredit religion, since I am a man of science, and both science and religion are based on assumptions. However, not all assumptions are to be created equal. The point of the gun-shooting analogy is this: you would not want me to shoot you in the head with a gun. Why? Because you have seen what has happened in other situations where people get shot in the head with a gun. However, if you don't want me to shoot you, YOU ARE MAKING THE ASSUMPTION that what has happened in your past observations will happen again when I shoot you in the head. It is NOT a fact that you will get shot in the head and die. The only fact is that other people have died when they got shot in the head. It is a logical ASSUMPTION, an inference, that what happens to other people will also happen to you. My point is that if you think that all assumptions are equally respectable, then it would be equally respectable for you to think that million-dollar-bills will rain from the sky when I shoot you in the head with a gun. Both predictions, "death" and "money rain", require you to make assumptions. Since both scenarios require assumptions, then by your logic, it would be equally respectable to believe in either scenario.

I'm still here, so I guess that asteroid never hit. I don't worry about a life ending asteroid hitting in the next 5 minutes because its out of my control, and I don't have to assume or even think about it. What happened before the universe existed and what happens after you die are also out of control. Why assume you know anything about it? No, because I know that people have been shot in the head and I know that after people were shot in the head a shower of magical flying puppies didn't appear, which is evidence contrary to the assumption. Similarly, we see that nothing around us has ever...ever...EVER had supernatural origins. Nothing that has ever been studied has yielded the result "god put it there" or "ghosts put it there". Also, you are assuming that what would happen if I shot YOU in the head would be the same thing that happened when other people got shot in the head. By your previous logic, you would have no more reason to operate under this assumption than you do to assume that something different would happen to you. They both require assumptions and therefore are both equiprobable.

And to tell me who I am as a person, I have brilliant philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. All of which have nothing to do with a belief that I have been poofed into existence by a magician or that I have some kind of spirit dwelling with in me that is going to go somewhere when I die. The questions you are asking are questions of philosophy and are not what most religions are about. Whether or not there is a god has nothing to do with whether or not I subscribe to any sort of morality or philosophy. When I want to know what happened, I turn to science. When I want to know things about myself, I turn to philosophy. Religion...what does it answer? What does it have to do with philosophy?

You assume that everything you see is real, but lets say you're actually on hallucinogens. Everything is a figment of your imagination, so is everything you perceive real? Or lets say that the entire universe and everything in it was created yesterday, including fossils and memories. You have no proof otherwise, yet you'd think this is a ridiculous statement because of the fossils and memories that are there, but were created with everything else. You assume much about the world and are condescending to people that assume different things, this is ridiculous. Do you think that it would be perfectly logical to go start telling people that the asteroid is coming then? After all, if you don't think the asteroid will hit in 5 minutes, you are just making assumptions. Do you think I should point a gun at your head and pull the trigger? If you don't want me to do this...you are making the assumption that a bullet will come out of the gun and go into your brain and kill you. What if, instead of being killed, pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger might result in ending world hunger? How do you know that you would be killed and not that the world would be saved? Both predictions require assumptions. We can try this if you want. I mean if all assumptions are valid then why would you ever think you are right in assuming that firing a gun at your head would kill you? If you think that firing a gun at your head would result in death, then you are totally condescending toward anyone who thinks that shooting someone in the head will result in a shower of magical flying puppies falling from the sky. This doesn't make any sense. Do I use "myself" to answer other questions about the world? Should we "use ourselves" to find the cure for cancer, since science hasn't yet provided us with the answer? Until we have evidence that gives us answers, people don't just make up magical stories. Except for creation. Doctors don't have a cure for AIDS, and we don't just say "Well, maybe if you close your eyes, clap your hands, and spin around three times, a leprechaun will appear and cure your AIDS" When asked for a cure for AIDS, we must say "We don't know yet". The same is true for the origins of time and space. We aren't sure yet, so we simply dont know, and we shouldnt pretend to know.

I think you already know the answer to that. Honestly, I dont. What are they? The assumptions that the things I see are real? That scientific methods used to place relative dates on rocks and fossils are not trying to hoodwink me? And these assumptions are no better than someone who assumes that the origin of everything is a magical being? That's crap. And I know you would only say this about the case of the creation of our universe. There is no conclusive 100% proof that there is not a giant asteroid that will destroy Earth in 5 minutes. We are all currently operating under the assumption that there are measures in place to detect the path of asteroids, that these methods are accurate, that the asteroid obeys the laws of physics, etc. If I were to run around in a panic, informing people that the Earth is about to end, would you consider my decision to be respectable? Is my belief true? I can make the random assumption that we will all die, or I can make a series of assumptions that suggest that there is no apocolyptic asteroid about to hit the Earth. Yet when it comes to the origins of the universe, people think that an assumption based on absolutely no evidence should be just as respected as a series of assumptions based on evidence. This is because we still use the same word that people used in the past. Cosmologists today do not think that our universe is the only universe that exists or has ever existed.

DUH You can't prove that axiom in math, you have to assume or believe it to be true. How is God any different? We assume lots of things to be true. However we make lots of observations that lead us to the fundamental assumptions of math. An assumption based on evidence is certainly MUCH DIFFERENT from an assumption based on no evidence. A scientist has to operate based on the assumption that what he sees under the microscope actually exists and is not an optical illusion. Is he silly for doing so? No. However, one could also make the assumption (again I will use this example) that he is constantly being followed by invisible monsters that are ready to strangle him. Is this person right in living his life cowering in fear from these monsters? No. There is little evidence that seems to confirm his assumption. No, you're picking and choosing what you want to assume, and you're berating everyone else for making different assumptions. This, in my opinion, is ridiculous and hypocritical. What exactly are you talking about? I'd like a list of what assumptions I make that are no better than the assumptions a creationist would make.