Quote:Yes. But once again "Burden of proof".
But if there is no way to prove something doesn't exist, doesn't that apply to god also?
The fact is, I can't prove god doesn't exist. However I can prove that everything god is attributed to could have come about by other means and/or just plain didn't happen. The fact is that the existence of god is ridiculous on its face. As patently ridiculous as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the burden is on anybody asserting god exists to prove it. Until you do, I'll have to assume he doens't. Much the same way I will assume that things will fall down and the sun will rise in the east.
Quote:You said absitenence would mena noone would get AIDS. You were wrong.
Are you trying to tell me that the AID epidemic in africa is caused solely by dirty needles and blood transfusions?
Quote:No. Animals exhibit moralistic behaviour all the time. It is entirely possible for the morals and values we hold to be totally derived from biological pressures, and there are quite a few studies supporting this.
The problem with that is that those values had to come from
a religious source.
Granted, we haven't seen a society develop morals without a religon of some kind, but we also haven't seen any society develop from scracth without a religion. However, it should be noted that societies such as Native American, Oriental and others have all managed to have moral people in them without paying lipservice to the Abrahamic diety.
Quote:So, answer me this:
That's the main crux of the problem if you combine it
with the inability to let others beleive as they wish. I
have that problem with those that do it myself.
The pope issues a statement condeming antibiotics. He calls them evil and says that all good Christians should refrain from using them.
Is this wrong? Or is it just him exercising his beliefs?
--------------------
Epsilon