Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.
Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.
Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.
I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing.
Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionBuddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not.
Well it is possible to believe god, but not believe in a religion.
As usual, Fluffer Overblow is kinda backwards in his thinking.
religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
"6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."
Are you really
dank in disguise? After all,
dank did a lot of his posting from his phone just like you.
You have two problems, here.
First, neither science nor atheism meet your selected definition. Science is not a belief system, it's a methodology. Ethics and moral conscience are not in any way directly linked to either science or atheism. Atheism isn't a belief system, either. It's the lack of any theistic belief system. A lack of a certain kind of belief is not necessarily a belief itself.
You would be better off trying to argue that Empiricism, not science, is a religion according to definition #6. Empiricism
is a belief system -- specifically, it is the belief/theory that a certain type of knowledge can be gained through sound empirical exploration. Science is an empirical method of exploration, not a belief system itself. So, you're still wrong.
Second, by selecting definition #6, you make a false analogy because you most often treat Christianity according to religious definition #1. This means that you aren't talking about science or atheism in the same way that you're talking about Christianity. This is a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm
