Exactly. You just gave a great reason for atheism I'll tell you how things worked back when people didn't know about electrons and protons, etc.:

Religious guy: Well, apparently we can't explain where atoms come from so it must be directly related to god.

Atheist: Err... well, maybe we just don't know yet. But we'll know in the future.

Religious guy: Yeah, that's what you guys always say...

I'll promise you one thing: As soon as we find out more about the current mysteries of life it will cause another wave of people leaving the church. Why? Because once more it will be obvious god didn't play a role in it. That's what happened in the past and that's what's going to happen in the future

““Sadly those with weaker faith are swayed very easily, however just because you can explain something by science doesn’t mean it cant be attributed to god, why do you think a natural order exists  as it does in this world?, is it b/c a bunch of items simple fell into place one after another until complex systems built them self’s from scratch with out some outside influence guiding them? After all science can tell us why water travels down hill but does that mean god did not set in motion the rules and reasons for it to do that? You cant answer that one b/c you cant know now can you? For all of the science you can produce you still can answer that one question, how did this all start?

And I think you over looked the point of my atom story, it wasn’t that science can prove there are smaller things and thus no god, for the longest time the “scientific” community thought the atom was the smallest until a few scientist were brave enough to go after it and prove it wasn’t. However do you think in all that time when the educated were positive that the atom was the smallest that it actually was? Do you think that just b/c they did not know about quirks and quarks and electrons and protons and neutrons that they simply did not exist?

Oh and I hope you're not trying to imply that me showing you exactly those 13 cards has a deeper meaning... I'm sure it doesn't.

No like I said there is not always a deeper meaning in things, some times a pretty picture is really just a pretty picture, and a bunch of cards are really just a bunch of cards, I was however implying that no matter how random you might be trying to make it there will still be a reason and order to what you are doing,  whether you grabbed this card to start then went five deeper to the next then grabbed this one b/c you really wanted to keep it varied—there will always be a reason and b/c of this random is never really possible

And using this argument just at times when you like it (for you it does work for the cards but not for Hitler...) is a) not fair to people having a discussion to you and b) surely wouldn't be accepted by a lot of religious people themselves.

I am to sure about this, are you speaking to me or about religion in general, I am not eh voice of any religion nor would I ever want to claim to be, I am simply a man who has faith and has come to an understanding with himself and his god, and as I have used the argument in a valid point, and I am not sure about eth Hitler comment, if your trying to imply that what happened to the Jewish community was random then you are mistaken, there was nothing random about it as it was all a result of choices made by Hitler and the lack of choices mad by those that could stop him

If you will it was nothing more then a series of events that while snowballing eventually came to a stop

Everything that our senses communicate is reality.  Our intellectual interpretations of the data from our senses might be faulty (e.g. a hallucination or a mirage) but the data itself is right; there are reasons for hallucinations and mirages, too, and our senses point to them.

and this is the point where you have to just have to take it on faith, until you have it you will never understand, it becomes akin to describing the color green to someone that has never opend their eyes

"Moreover, nobody should believe it, because "believing" something without understanding it is meaningless at best, and very dangerous at worst."

Moreover, nobody should believe it, because "believing" something without understanding it is meaningless at best, and very dangerous at worst.

You can tell me how exactly a million thing s works, but since you do not know everything you cant tell me how every thing works, infact right at this moment you couldn’t even tell me how every item you interact with in your every day life works could you, from the way people operate to how the car you might drive works, but at least 90 % of those items you could figure out with the help of Google and others

How ever just b/c you might not understand how the car your driving works you still believe  in the fact that it will stat up and drive, you still believe that the sun will rise and set, and you still believe that you will b alive

As humane knowledge grows we will eventually reach a point that we can say see this line here on graph page 3890 that is god, that was the right we took when we ate of the fruit and gained knowledge, some day that will happen

But until hat day his faithful will just have to operate of that, faith

And until you reach you “ohh there you are” you will not understand, you will disbelieve, and you will be intolerant in some form or another

what about a blind man, he cant see so is what we are seeing not real?

or a deaf man, he cant hear, are teh sounds not real?

I know what you were trying to imply with your argument. What I wanted to say is that god is not necessary to explain the world and I can very well imagine a world without god having created it You can't just use god as the beginning of everything just because we can't explain how it worked yet. And it is dangerous. I could tell you why Satan created the world that way, too. Then that would be my belief vs your belief. So which one is more valid then?

Oh and of course the second world war was a chain of actions, everything is. What I'm telling you is that you can't assume there is a "deeper meaning" (= God's will) to the flour on the floor but not to Hitler. It doesn't work that way. You can't just cherry-pick the things that support your argument and let the others slip. Using this way of thinking every single Nazi on this world would have a "legitimate" reason for the second world war. How do you know what god wanted and what not? Maybe he didn't want you to meet your wife but he wanted Hitler to start a war?

See what I mean? This way of thinking is dangerous. Other people could abuse it in terrible ways.

"And until you reach you “ohh there you are” you will not understand, you will disbelieve, and you will be intolerant in some form or another"

WAIT! "Intolerant" just because I don't believe as you do??

Louie said: I know what you were trying to imply with your argument. What I wanted to say is that god is not necessary to explain the world and I can very well imagine a world without god having created it You can't just use god as the beginning of everything just because we can't explain how it worked yet. And it is dangerous. I could tell you why Satan created the world that way, too. Then that would be my belief vs your belief. So which one is more valid then? Oh and of course the second world war was a chain of actions, everything is. What I'm telling you is that you can't assume there is a "deeper meaning" (= God's will) to the flour on the floor but not to Hitler. It doesn't work that way. You can't just cherry-pick the things that support your argument and let the others slip. Using this way of thinking every single Nazi on this world would have a "legitimate" reason for the second world war. How do you know what god wanted and what not? Maybe he didn't want you to meet your wife but he wanted Hitler to start a war? See what I mean? This way of thinking is dangerous. Other people could abuse it in terrible ways.

Well, in the above post he seems to have gone back to "there's a reason, but not necessarily a purpose" with the cards and flour, so it should be good.

Sanity is defined by the majority. 

@ appolose:  The only way your argument works is to question all of existence outside of good ole cogito ergo sum, which is fun but pointless.  Trusting in the existence of the apparent universe isn't "faith" but "life".

Right, exactly.

I don't take these things on faith.  Faith, to me, means believing in something because I'm told to believe in it.  That doesn't sound either pleasant or wise to me.

No, I can't tell you how everything works.  But here's the key: when I don't understand how something works, I don't pretend to.

I feel that many conceptions of God, etc., come from people who (like me) couldn't understand how everything works... but they weren't comfortable with that.  And so, they invented explanations.  Why do the seasons work as they do?  Well... there was this chick named Persephone, and one day...

I do believe that my car will start, but not as a matter of dogma.  If my car doesn't start one day, my worldview won't come crashing down around my ears.  Instead, I'll assume that there's a logical explanation for it, and I'll bring it to those people who have the expertise to determine the problem.

There's no "faith" involved in what I believe about my car.  Not all beliefs are religious beliefs--they're not all matters of faith.

I don't see the point to your parting insult, or agree that it's true.

Not agreeing with you =/= "intolerant."

And, with that, I think I'll bow out of our discussion (feel free to have the last word); once we reach the point of "well, it's a matter of faith" then there's nothing more to argue, because faith by its nature cannot be communicated from one person to another.  It's a completely personal phenomenon and, in my opinion, a bad basis for belief and action.

A bit like idiots that pay Mensa to tell them they are clever.

To me paying someone to tell you that is not clever at all!