nope, i'm an Atheist. Please don't try to convince me why i'm wrong, and try to shove your beliefs on me. Thanks

EDIT: Kind of strange, but i believe in recarnation, but i'm still Atheist in the sense that i don't believe in a being of higher form or power, such as a god, or deity.

i do, i belive in "A" God.

Or maybe they were told that their prayers would be answered, naively believed it and when they prayed to god to be straight and he failed to do so they started asking themselves if it was the only thing their faith got wrong.

Avalach21 said: lolita said: The Ghost of RubangB said: Wait, so does any male nudity remind you of homosexuality? How about this?   So... Tiny... why are his pubes all clumped up

@Lolita: maybe he is a grower, not a shower?

@Avalach: it's called grooming, try it it's your friend.

Lolita said: "Though that doesn't explain the tinyness...."

maybe he originally made it bigger but had a bad day with the chisel... a guy's nightmare.

Science doesn't really work, anyway. You can't prove anything with it, you can't even claim it can give a good guess. You can never prove that you're not hallucinating, or being manipulated by some sinister force. And you can't say that it's indicative of anything because you would be using science to demonstrate that, which would be circular. I'm not even sure if methods of truth exist, or if the idea makes any sense at all.

No, I don´t.

Science does indeed not have to disprove god, nor does it have to prove it. Science just has to do its best to explain the universe and give us cool gadgets in the process as an added bonus .

However, like your use of our current scientific understanding to support a belief in a specific god show, most religion make numerous claims on how the world is, and the more claim a religion makes that are disproven the more likely it is that religion is false.

For example, the Greek religion believed 12 gods are residing in a palace on mount Olympus so a simple trek to Mount Olympus with a thorough search of it is enough to cast serious doubt over that belief as a palace would be quite noticeable.

Now greek pantheon apologists would probably claim that they wouldn't make it visible to humans or some other excuse but all they are doing is redefining their religion when and where it is proven wrong. Enough such redefinition and the resulting religion bears as much resemblance with the earlier version as we do to our aquatic ancestors in the evolutionary tree.

For example, most christians today bear little resemblance to christians of the middle ages that believed the Earth was flat, covered by a fixed firmament, orbited by the Sun, standing on pillars that shook when god was angry... because the church said so on basis of what the bible says.

As our understanding of the universe expands one has the choice to hold fast to thousand year old beliefs as they become outdated (not all of them as some are not in the same domain as science and others will be right as even a broken clock is right twice a day) which doesn't make sense (very few people have enough faith in the bible's innerrancy to still believe the earth is flat) or to keep cutting away at their beliefs until only the non-disprovable core remains and their deity goes from a breathing, visible, talking old man in the sky who takes an active interest in his believers well being to a nebulous, invisible, silent, spiritual entity that sits back and does nothing but promises a lot in an hypothethical afterlife.

As such, the more claims a religion make on the natural world, the more disprovable by science it is, so while science cannot totally disprove every and all forms of gods it can and does disprove plenty of them beyond a reasonable doubt.

The deity most unlikely to ever be disproven is the deist god as he only impacted on the world at its creation (big bang) and we are unlikely to ever be able to know enough about things that far back to reasonably prove/disprove such a god.

Going by this logic one could say that fairies, elves, magic, gnomes, unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Why would the lack of reason for anything necessitate the continued survival of humanity to be by lying?

And even if it was, you wouldn't have proven that a god/gods exist, but if it was the case then wouldn't the lie that you deem necessary be something to give humanity meaning? Something like religion perhaps?

So even if we accept your huge leap there all you have proven is:

_If there is a god humanity has meaning, hence religion(s).

_If there isn't a god humanity needs a lie to keep on going, hence religion(s).

It looks to me like you believe more in belief itself than it god.

However, let me challenge your assumption that if nothing has meaning given to us by god's existence then humanity would lack the motivation to continue:

There are plenty of nonbelievers (atheists, agnostics, pantheists, orthotheists...) that enjoy life and have plenty of motivations to continue it. So the question is not "would everyone commit suicide if nobody believed in god" anymore but "if all those that can't live without a supernatural entity in their life commited suicide would there be a big enough population and enough genetic variety left to succesfully carry on the human race".

Now we have two problems: what is the human race's MVP (minimum Viable Population) and geographic spread.

The good news is that even if only one person in a million could survive without god in their life then we would have a population of 6000 individuals which is very likely to be above the MVP as low estimates for MVP are around 500 iirc (or 2 for abrahamic god believers) and genetic evidence tells us that we were likely descended from between 1000 and 10000 breeding pairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory).

The bad news is that these 6000 people would be scattered all over the planet and thus might locally not be enough to  sustain themselves.

The good news is that atheists seem to be more prominent in more modern societies and among scientists so while Africa would be more likely to be wiped out there probably would be a few hundreds in America, Europe and parts of Asia (mostly Japan and China I would guess)and they would be most likely to be where means of transportations would still exist long enough to start organising the remnant of humanity and as there should be quite a few scientists in the bunch it would help in our survival.

So if it ever happens and you didn't commit suicide, head for the nearest town that is currently known as a den of iniquity to help rebuild the human race.

Oh, and women, sorry but most of you surviving will probably be more useful for further survival as baby making machines so I am not sure that the first few generations would be the best time for gender equality (but it would be very unlikely to be worse than a bible/koran based theocracy). On the other hand the surviving males would be less likely to be influenced by mysoginistic religious beliefs (hopefully they wouldn't be influenced by nonreligious mysoginistic beliefs either).

So there, even if all your premise are correct humanity would still be very likely to survive, so while religion and the need for belief might have been a survival trait for humanity in the past it is likely not to be in the future (especially if Iran gets the bomb or a christian theocracy destroys the US constitution or worse, both at the same time).

Yes.
Why?
See colorful website in sig...