I'm using a browser without a spell checker. I apologize for errors.
Once again I don't mean this to be a personal attack to whom I have quoted. Just another ideas.
That is an interesting point. Personally I haven't men anyone who says any god did wrote the bible. It's been wrote by people who then believed in god, and I can't see anything wrong with that. Of course we can discuss if it should or not be read as a rulebook or just as a memoir, alike book Napoleon's friend wrote about him. Funny thing about those heroic biographies is, that they're mostly written with drunkard admire and of course either those can't have much factual purpose other than as historical references.
Still, in my opinion anyone is free to learn and follow any teaching by their heart if they wish.
I doubt anyone on this forum is like this, but during finals week, there were a few biblical literalists out doing their thing on campus. In California, this doesn't happen that much, but unfortunately, literal belief is incredibly rampant in America. I don't think it should be read as either a rulebook or a memoir. It contains a lot of factually incorrect and really implausible stuff, in both the rulebook part and in both the history part. The rulebook part also contains a lot of things that seem very arbitrary and hard to justify. I think that a reason based approach is the way to go in terms of making rules and dictating morality. An ancient text may have some cultural value, but it serves no practical purpose in modern society. It's actually pretty ****ing scary that Americans elect people who believe the bible literally and that influences their decisions in Congress.
I find it interesting that so many thinks the only possible explanation for question of faith should be whether we can prove existence of something. Well, we can't prove that universe was created out of nothing either. The way we see cosmology is just a best hunch we've got, nothing more. Really high probability, but nothing certain. So probable, that it overrules any other theories, but still there's no guarantee. I'm not really sure how anything like that can be seen as a solid argument against anything. And yes, I strongly swear for scientific approach in everything, and am not trying to deny any conventional facts.
Well, it's because current theories in cosmology are so well tested that they can be taken as fact and any future theories must explain old data. While in science, nothing can be 100% certain, what we have with cosmology is a very well supported theory that's pretty much universally accepted. Even more, we know where and why the theory doesn't work. In science, an incredibly well supported theory can be taken as rock solid fact and thus can be used as a solid argument for or against stuff.
Of course, you can point to certain things and say that we don't know how they work and I'm fine with that. Since in those things, nobody has a good explanation, there is no good reason to believe any, which is why I am an atheist. I'm drawn toward science because scientists can test their hypothesis. Religion simply does not have any reliable way of describing how the universe came into existence.
And as some people say "god is the universe" or that it's in the nature, it is the nature and every awe in physics. After all it's just about epistemology. We're arguing semantics in here. There's no point in that. What matters is how people choose to act based on their beliefs and intuitions. Whether they're willing to use their freedom of thought or just willing to claim everything without proving they can handle challenges and life itself. Asking whether someone believes might have nothing to do with if they're a good person and liked citizen or even prone to do good things.
Imho.
Well, the term 'god' is pretty much defined to how people see it convienent. I agree that what matters is how people act now what they believe. However, there is no belief above criticism.
Btw, I'd like to ask a question from everyone that have read to this point: When you meet new person, do you automatically think them as neutral: atheistic or agnostic, or having somewhat similar belief as you have yourself - or something other?
Usually neutral. I don't really care.
laugh with her :biggrin: cook & eat food with her 
