RE: Clint & Robert on "Faith in Science"

Clint O'Dell (
Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:46:24 MDT

>Likewise athiesm is a faith. An atheist believes that there is no external
>agent interfering with the universe. There is nothing wrong with this. You
>cannot have a model, describe a system, without making assumptions. >Every
>system has its axioms. Atheists need a ground like anyone else. It is also
>a rational ground, if you define rationality in terms of the scientific
>method, and particularly atheism.

Faith is the belief in something despite the evidence. Atheism and science do not have faith. I have lots of evidence to support there are no gods and gods cannot exist in this universe. Theists have no evidence. Absolutely zero. They believe despite the evidence against it. They make up all sorts of reasons that are very weak grounded. They are caught up in their own delusion that they "feel" god in them.

>Pragmatism creeps in for the rational. A rational person (the reasonable
>englishman?) may well ask what is the need for God in our models? We only
>need god, the external agent, if we observe things in the universe which we
>absolutely cannot model, and will never be able to.

We don't need a god for this either. Just because you can't explain something for the moment doesn't mean you can just make up some being to fill the void. You except you don't know and that's that.

>Leaving that aside, if we find we need to introduce God to create valid
>models, then we have valid models.

You have ignorance and stupidity. Like I said, don't make up some nonsense to try to explain things. What you are suggesting is to allow the ignorant to make up beings like Zeus, Pan, Cherubims, etc.. To explain observations. That's bad reasoning and pseudoscience.

>Why then would the purely rational choose atheism? The purely rational
>would mark the question of the existence of God as an unanswerable and
>unnecessary question.

There is no God. A God could not exist by the laws of the universe and the laws of the universe defines what is capable of existing and how that is accomplished.

>Either way, we have no rational way to choose either option (God or Not
>God), and cannot make anything useful of such information even if we have

There is no evidence for it and much evidence against it. Not to mention the impossibility of it. Any truly rational person who has the evidence can see there is no God and the idea came about from ignorant ancestors who appealed to their emotion for the need of comfort.

>To choose Atheism then is to choose a belief. It is based on aesthetics; on
>a feeling about how the universe works, and on nothing else. Like any
>system of belief.

Depends on why you're an atheist. Atheism is without theism, without belief.

Atheists who have weak reasons for being atheist say they "believe" there are no gods. All other atheists lack belief, by its definition.

Jesus said follow him and he will make you fishers of men (brain washers, murders, ignorance spreaders).
I say get a brain and follow nobody.

Get Your Private, Free Email at