This thread started out nicely enough, but has now taken a turn for the unbelievably moronic.
1) People who say God exists and God doesn't exist BOTH have the burden of proof when they want to convince others of their view. We have explained this ad nauseum in previous threads.
2) Establishing an equivalency between God's existance and Leprechauns' (or orbiting teacups', or the flying spaghetti monster's) existence is based on some unspoken and fairly questionable assumptions. You are free to believe that God's existence is no more credible than theirs, of course, but if you want to form a persuasive argument, you have to deal with the issue's complexities rather than going for arch reductionism. If you don't know what these complexities are, you shouldn't be debating this issue either way.
2) Both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Hebrews knew the Earth was round. This was a settled matter long before 300 years ago.
3) Science has always existed to whatever degree people were able to practice it. The scientific method was codified by Francis Bacon in the 16th Century. He was not an atheist. The only difference between science then and science now is that the conceptual tool of scientific inquiry has become overextended and know-nothings are demanding we accept scientific truth to the exclusion
of all other forms of truth. This notion of science's exclusive claim to truth is in no way advised by the scientific method.
4) Science is a complete red herring in this discussion. Anytime an atheist brings up "science" as a way of explaining his beliefs, it's a pretty good indication that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Originally Posted by Wess
This is is quite ignorant. When we thought the world was flat, it was because of the same reasons we used to (some still do) believe in God. It's made up because we didn't actually try to find the answer. We just assumed the easiest thing we can think of. We now know better because we looked for the answer, through science.
But we know now the the Earth is round, and people are still debating God's existence as they have for time immemorial, and as they always will. So obviously the two issues are nothing
This is just really such a baffling non-argument you have here.
I find it funny that all of a sudden we're innundated with noowatheists who swear up and down that science is incompatible with a belief in God. Where were all these people a mere six or seven years ago? I mean, the scientific method has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, and there has been no scientific discovery in recent memory that has changed the debate about God's existence one bit. Yet suddenly, great masses of people have decided that science and religion are incompatible. Doesn't this just prove that the spread of atheism has nothing at all to do with science in any substantive sense, and everything to do with social trends? -- and aren't social trends precisely what atheists accused religions of being in the first place?
We can never prove there is no God, as you can not prove that something is not there. What you can do is look at the evidence. I think what the evidence says is clear.
What is this evidence? What does it say?