Religion is a hypothesis.

[jficquette]

Quote from kut2k2:

Don't say "we don't understand gravity" when what you really mean is you don't understand gravity. You didn't know what the word "gravity" meant until somebody explained it to you.

And the reason we say gravity exists is because it does exist: the evidence for gravity is overwhelming. As I posted elsewhere, even infants are aware of what we call gravity, whether they know it by that name or not.

Isaac Newton defined gravity quite nicely, and he measured it as well. It turns out his definition didn't explain all later observable astronomical phenomena, and Einstein came along with an improved theory about gravity called general relativity that covered the data that Newtonian gravity couldn't account for. But Newtonian gravity is still perfectly adequate for explaining the vast majority of gravitational events encountered by humans.

Sometimes a scientific theory is not so much replaced as it is subsumed by a better theory. If the earlier theory had no validity at all, it would never have gained much traction in the first place.

For non-relativistic events, Newton's theory of gravity works just as well as Einstein's, and has the advantage of being much simpler. Newtonian physics got us to the moon and back.

Thats sad that you think so shallow.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from killthesunshine:

ok, what is your definition of non existence? what, in your view, does not or cannot exist?

I don't have one because to define it you would have to have all the answers.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from jficquette:

Thats sad that you think so shallow.

Another content-free bit of sophistry. Why am I not surprised?

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from kut2k2:
...

So the theory that what goes up must come down is not exactly true but it is <s>largely</s> true for most human experience. It was <s>replaced</s> subsumed by Newton's theory of gravity, which is not exactly true but is almost entirely true for most human and extraterrestrial phenomena. Now we have Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) that appears to be entirely true but may yet be replaced [or subsumed] by something better.

By way of contrast, the evidence for your god/creator theory is exactly zero.

Edited for accuracy.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from jficquette:

I don't have one because to define it you would have to have all the answers.

the reason i ask is your assumption of existence seems loose and fast. isn't non existence the other side of the coin?

 

[stu]

Quote from jficquette:

Thats sad that you think so shallow.

Quote from kut2k2:
Another content-free bit of sophistry. Why am I not surprised?

The first need religion teaches and instills into people.
A contentment in acting dumb about stuff, with a nonsensical unwarranted importance being given to deliberately not understand the most obvious things .
To complete the insanity, they will say it's you, not they, who doesn't understand.
sheesh.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from kut2k2:



By way of contrast, the evidence for your god is exactly zero.

good for you,


The fact is, that's nothing more than your opinion .

get over it

The real question is what evidence is acceptable to you?

 

[Index piker]

Quote from stu:

The first need religion teaches and instills into people.
A contentment in acting dumb about stuff, with a nonsensical unwarranted importance being given to deliberately not understand the most obvious things .
To complete the insanity, they will say it's you, not they, who doesn't understand.
sheesh.

I feel sorry for you, better mommy, better brains, whatever it is you are missing , better luck next life.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

Quote from kut2k2:

By way of contrast, the evidence for your god is exactly zero.

good for you,

The fact is, that's nothing more than your opinion .

My informed opinion.

Quote from Index piker:
get over it

The real question is what evidence is acceptable to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

If your god is real, why is there no irrefutable evidence of its existence?

There are only two types of atheists but there are at least a million (and growing) different types of theists. How can this be, if there is one and only one true God (or collective of true gods)?

Believers can't even agree on what the truth is about god(s) and ID.

Why? Because there's no compelling evidence about gods. So anybody can make up whatever the hell they want to create a new theism. How else to explain Mormonism and Scientology? By extension, how else to explain any religion, however "venerable"?

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from stu:

The first need religion teaches and instills into people.
A contentment in acting dumb about stuff, with a nonsensical unwarranted importance being given to deliberately not understand the most obvious things .
To complete the insanity, they will say it's you, not they, who doesn't understand.
sheesh.

That's the main reason I got out. I got tired of people telling me not to think, just believe. Funny, I never found thinking "hurt" me in any other area of my life except my religion.