The religious right, for sure.
But atheists, by definition, feel a need to prove it.

Most Americans embrace religion only as tightly as they embrace their elderly aunts during the holidays.

But you are treating religious faith and science as opposing forces.

Why can't science be correct, AND an intelligent creator be responsible?

Not saying that's my interpretation, but it's the most clear cut way to explain it.

Although I've defended my faith on occasion, I've NEVER told a non-believer that they were wrong or stupid simply because they didn't believe.

How many atheists can say the same?

All the above sounds wrong and stupid.

THAT was funny...

Am I? I don't recall an us vs them argument.



For one, science is the act of formulating and testing theories, so by it's very nature, the act of science is attempting to prove theories wrong, not trying to prove them to be correct. The idea is to test to see if the reality matches predictions, then to retest against other predictions until something doesn't match, then back to the drawing board, rinse and repeat.

As far as an intelligent creator being responsible, there's no way we can prove/disprove it so why waste brain power on it?

So I watched the video. Figured I may as well since I'm commenting on the thread.

It's dumb.

It isn't saying anything at all. Just saying "god is outside of all this" doesn't actually answer any questions. It doesn't define anything. It is by nature of the answer waving ones hands in the air and saying "everything is answered by the fact that it's god!".

I understand that for those who are willing to make that leap of faith that their "god" is "god" this is an appropriate answer. It has to be. Otherwise you don't have sufficient faith.
But those of you who have that amount of faith absolutely have to also understand that what he is saying is absolute gibberish if you take out the fundamental assumption that your god is "god".

The biggest problem I've had with these sort of arguments is that there is no defining characteristics.
Christians are sure it's their deity, as defined in their bible which exists outside of the universe.
So are all the other religions.

The definable qualities of this "god" is that it's "outside of the universe" and therefore cannot be quantified or measured or subjected to any laws of our universe.

Every "god" has that quality. Including gods which have not been defined by christiantiy. There is an infinite number of potential religions (including one which is exactly like christiantiy, but god is left handed, or one which demands all of you give victor all your money while you are on the mortal plane) which fit that quality.

His argument is neither a defense of this external deity, nor is it an argument that his external deity has any more probability of existence than any other random creation of rules.

God can't be left-handed... That's absurd.. 🤐

Why would such a being have hands when he can move sh1t with his mind?

S$$t... are you kidding me?
Having hands is one of the only defining characteristics christians bothered giving their god. "made man in his image"?

Of course... that's funny too. and additional evidence that this guy in the debate was just talking out of his azz.
Because for god to have made man in his image, you need to have an image. That requires "matter". There has to be a way of measuring a thing for there to be a thing ...

You can't say god is outside of space, time and matter, and also have a religion which states we were made to look like the god.

But that's just one more in the millions of inconsistencies

well maybe I'm God and I just haven't told anybody... 😟

So which hand did you used to rub one out with when there was nothing?

God is, of course, ambidextrous. Duh.

Don't make me smite your ass... 😳

Did you enjoy it the first time?

You sure are smitten by lots of ass

😱

I thought God was anti-sodomy.

Drafter got an exception. He’s got the brown ticket.