Originally Posted by Zaro

You ask why an atheist like me even bothers with true believers? For me personally, I do it because I have a vested interest that those people have as little influence on making public policy as possible.

Originally Posted by justsayn

I really find this section of this site interesting. I really enjoy the back and forth dialogue between bibliologist and the atheist.

What I find most humorous though is when the atheist try to use scientific fact to discredit bible theory to someone who has quite obviously rejected any form of the scientific process.

Has it really not occurred to the atheist that the bibliologist investment in their beliefs is not based in any spiritual or realistic foundation what-so-ever?

The reason "Christians" choose to overlook reality as you see it, is due to the social implications that come with being accepted in a group that "accepts" them.

In summary, the majority of people on this planet, not just Christians but most faiths, are willing to fore go logic for an accepting social group designed to, as far as I can tell; give them an enormous ego boost.

Any thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

Wow, you figured me out. Going to Mass on Sundays is all about my ego.

Originally Posted by Justice Strike

actually. Atheists are the same as religious people.

Religious people believe in god and refuse to admit there is a chance he doesn't exist.

Atheists cannot proof there is no god, yet they refuse to admit there is a chance that there is a god.

Originally Posted by stekim

Yeah, atheists are the same. Except for the whole not believing in God thing.

Originally Posted by Wrathful_Buddha

Well, not quite. If you produce evidence of god, unicorns, or dragons, I will believe in them. I will say that it's possible that all of these exist, and the probability of them existing is equal for all three.

Originally Posted by Spare

Or, to put that another way .....

She wants to make sure her position is the dominant one, and wants to ensure her selfish needs are met, not caring what others think or what their needs might be, because after all, she is always right.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

Which is better than dismissing something that has basis because it's uncomfortable.
Everyone dismisses something (actually most people dismiss most things). It's part of how our brains function.
But when it comes down to it... when what you dismiss actually does come to some importance, it does matter what you are dismissing.

That's why the problem is particularly important in science, which is often the key to our future. Dismissing a majorly backed up scientific theory due to the clash with a belief that has no basis... can really screw things up. The opposite is not true. Dismissing God does not hurt science in any way.

As for everyday personal life... there are few things less important than whether you dismiss religion or most scientific theories. I'd focus more on the conflicting reports about what you should be eating.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

I agree that religionists are not motivated by science so such conversations are futile to that end...
But the arguments aren't about conversion.

The problem is that the political arm of extreme Christianity is making pseudo-scientific arguments to dupe the population into teaching their myths and pseudo-theories in science classes.
For the good of science... and its important place in the future of humanity... we need to debunk the pseudo-science as embodied by ID, if not for the spreaders of it then for the population they are trying to dupe... and the kids who will be learning in their schools.

Originally Posted by Justice Strike

nope, you don't have to believe in them. But you can keep the door open if it is proven they exist. Atheists tend to dismiss everything, because it "has no basis"