I'm with you mate.
Add Richard Feynmann to that list of yours.
2007-07-05 03:29:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
You used the words, Rational, educated, and intellect in your statment, as if they were tools that brought you to a conclusion. The problem with that is there is not enough proof available to any of us to draw a definitive conclusion about this subject. Your beleif in "science", and the information available to us, is no more definitive than the beleif in religion. The fact of the matter is none of us we're there, when this planet was created, therefore we don't really know how we became. So, if you were educated, rational, and thought intellectually, you would know, that you don't know, and never will. I have have seen scientist use science to justify the " Big Bang" theory, and I have seen Scientest use science to justify the religious point of view. Either way you choose, it's a belief, or theory at best, and not a diffentive conclusion. For example, Science will lead you to beleive that our solar system was developed, and created by an exploding star, and that all of the planets, sun, and moons, in our solar system, were pieces off of that star. Here's the problem. If you have an object, spinning or rotating at a high rate of speed, and that object explodes, simple physics, and the laws of inertia tell us that all of the debris from the original obect, will spin in the same direction, and at the same rate of speed. Some of our planets rotate clockwise, some counterclockwise, and some slower than others. So if science is used to prove the Big Bang theory, than science can also disprove it as well.
And what about our eco-system? Have you really looked at how specific it was, how detailed and fragile it is. I for one find it hard to beleive that it all happened by accident. If you were to change just one minor part of an areas eco-system, it could have devastaing results. Move some African Lions into Ohio, and see what happens to the eco-system there. Or take the carp out of a lake, and see how long the lake can sustain other life. Again, it is so complex, I just can't see enough proof, that all is here, and exist because of one star exploding, at least not enough proof to discredit all other theories.
Now I'm not saying your wrong, but I'm not saying your right either. But for you to claim that your an athiest, just because of science, than that tells me you have just selectivley picked, and chose what science you wanted to except as fact, and ignored what didn't fit into your atheist beleif. To truley "Question Everything", well, you would have to question everything, even the science.
2007-07-05 04:56:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carl Sagan was a brilliant man. Richard Dawkins is a good writer, but he isn't saying anything that Voltaire, Robert Ingersoll or others did not already say.
2007-07-05 03:35:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Science is not the reason I'm an atheist. Carl Sagan is just a voice from past documentaries, and I've never read Richard Dawkins, so I'm not inclined to give them praise, thanks.
2007-07-05 03:33:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by KC 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Very happy with being an atheist. I have Carl Sagan to thank for it.
2007-07-05 03:51:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by theSleepingMan 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I went through a period where I was very disappointed in Carl Sagan for being such a big proponent of smoking pot (you'd think a guy that smart would know better than to kill off his brain cells like that); but after re-reading "The Demon-Haunted World" recently I'm reminded of how much the man did to try to bring science to the masses....
2007-07-05 03:31:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Ah yes, my friend! There is nothing like finally ridding ones self of religious hate, bigotry, dogma and brainwashing.
When my eyes were finally opened, it was because of Carl Sagan, Darwin and Stephen Hawking. They pulled me out from under the dark blanket of Christian control and freed my mind from the bible. I could almost FEEL the burden slide off my shoulders.
I look back now at my early childhood life and shake my head that I fell for all that religious jargon.
2007-07-05 03:33:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I agree. Religion is but a delusional relic from the terrified infancy of our species.
Now excuse me while I go sacrifice a lamb to the Goddess of Chemistry.
2007-07-05 03:35:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Nuffink wrong with praising the brilliant heroes of the current New Atheist revolution. Unlike some heroes, whose clay feet start at their shoulders, these are mostly truly excellent people.
CD
2007-07-05 03:32:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Super Atheist 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
but what happens when an event such as the sea parting or a river turning into blood. totally crashes your sense of logic and perception?
2007-07-05 08:20:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Justin S 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It sounds like you are alone trying to rally a silly little case for science over religion. Even a serious atheist isn't going to play this sophmoric little game you dreamed up today.
Go take your medicine.
2007-07-05 03:34:09
·
answer #11
·
answered by joe_on_drums 6
·
1⤊
2⤋