"Besides, why do you want to be an atheist anyway? I can't think of any belief that is more distasteful than one which states there is no real purpose to life. It is always held in the shallow guise that it is more truthful than theism, but that's a bunch of baloney. It's better to put meaning thoroughly in your life and be a theist, become a strong spiritual person in your life, and live with the hope of building other people's faith in life. That's the best way. Of course, that's what I do, so I might be slightly slanted toward theism."
I never said I chose atheism because it had promise. I am an atheist because I was convinced that religion is false. I went to church for many years, studied the Bible, went to church camp, Vacation Bible School, etc., but it seemed to me that theists were trying to fight atheism. I like to expand my knowledge in subjects that I do not know much about. I read up on the discussions between atheism and theism, and found disappointing results. Atheism blew big chunks in theism, but atheism could not defend itself well. I looked at the subjects with an open mind. I resisted, but then I decided that theism was not true. It is not because I wanted to. When I have children, I will probably go to church, and bring my children to church. They will probably be theists, it is for the better if they are, at least when they are young. If they do not want to go because they do not believe, then I will not make them. I think that no bias is needed to make a statement like that.
"Beaten. Defeated. He was a sore loser and took his ball elsewhere to play."
By who? What were they talking about?
"Quantum mechanics forbids the notion that an atom 'hits' another in any classical sense of the word. The 'hitting' is all probablistic, and there is no actual touching."
I know, and knew, that. I meant that only as an example, so as to avoid a lengthy explaination, which would have been OFF-TOPIC. Once I have said enough for you to get 'the jist' of what I am saying, I leave it at that. It wasn't meant to be perfect, right... just enough for you to get the picture so that we could go on with the discussion without boring, pointless explainations of information not pertinent to the main idea of the passage. Why do you do this?
My best guess:
1. You were trying to tear down my confidence in making statements. That way you could only talk about those and not about the issues at hand.That makes me think that you have little confidence in you stance on the issues. I do not care about your confidence, only of your arguements. If you are going to disagree, disagree, if you are going to agree, agree. If patronizing insignificant phrases is your only reply, say that that is the only reason. Do not try to pass it off as a valid reply, there is no need for irrationality. Address the idea, the entire idea, but not necessarily all at once. Picking an arguement apart is ok, so long as it retains its original meaning.
"You should be careful with the term 'proven'. In science this is not a deductive proof, it is an inductive proof having formal mathematical support. It doesn't mean that the universe must operate a certain way. Nancy Cartwright, and excellent philosopher of science, has written a book in 1983 called "How the Laws of Physics Lie". Other philosophers have also gotten on the bandwagon and shown that the concept of 'law' is very misleading and that actually there are no known reasons why the universe continues forward as it has in the past. As surprising as this is, it is the case. Shhh... don't tell anyone."
Please read my statement again, you completely misunderstood it. I didn't say that science was proven, just that until any of the laws necessary for the Universe to function are disproven, God cannot be proven. We do not know