A question to atheists.

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

Like I said, it's not about belief. Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe religion is the search for truth. Religion is the search for meaning. Science is the search for truth. If you are a Christian fundamentalist, then you believe you already know all of the truth there is to konw and it has meaning for you. If you are a mainstream Christian then you use science to discover truth and religion to attach meaning to that truth. If you are an athiest, then you seek truth but don't attach meaning to it.

You would look at the Universe and say, "We are here because God..." This is your meaning. It explains the why. An athiest would look at the Universe and say, "We are here." The athiest might throw in some scientific theory about bubble universes, brane theory, or the big bang, but all of the explanations will focus on how.

I think the search for truth is a search for meaning, and vice versa. A scientist wants to know how and why, just like a religious person.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

What I find incredible is that billions of people take their belief in a deity so seriously that they shape their lives around the concept. The food they eat, the people they associate with, their idea of what is or is not moral, their philosophy, how they raise their children, who they marry, etc. All based on an unprovable idea.

Atheists go about their lives making decisions without taking into consideration whether their behavior is being judged by an entity who's existence they will never be able to confirm. That seems the only rational way to live to me.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
What evidence is there of a god?

I was hoping to avoid answering that, because I didn't intend this thread to be arguing the merits of theism versus atheism.

I'm interested in answering, but not in this thread. If I were to answer you here, everyone would gravitate towards that argument. If you start another thread with that question, I'll tell you what evidence I know of.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

What I find incredible is that billions of people take their belief in a deity so seriously that they shape their lives around the concept. The food they eat, the people they associate with, their idea of what is or is not moral, their philosophy, how they raise their children, who they marry, etc. All based on an unprovable idea.

Atheists go about their lives making decisions without taking into consideration whether their behavior is being judged by an entity who's existence they will never be able to confirm. That seems the only rational way to live to me.

And yet atheists don't tend to make decisions without consulting something they can't prove or confirm externally: their conscience.

Drat. I didn't want to get into this.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

Like I said, it's not about belief. Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe religion is the search for truth. Religion is the search for meaning. Science is the search for truth. If you are a Christian fundamentalist, then you believe you already know all of the truth there is to konw and it has meaning for you. If you are a mainstream Christian then you use science to discover truth and religion to attach meaning to that truth. If you are an athiest, then you seek truth but don't attach meaning to it.

You would look at the Universe and say, "We are here because God..." This is your meaning. It explains the why. An athiest would look at the Universe and say, "We are here." The athiest might throw in some scientific theory about bubble universes, brane theory, or the big bang, but all of the explanations will focus on how.

I think the search for truth is a search for meaning, and vice versa. A scientist wants to know how and why, just like a religious person.

I know that's what you think and I'm telling you it's false. In fact, many would claim that science isn't even a search for truth, it's a search for facts. Religion has no place in science as God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Scientists aren't interested in giving things "purpose." A scientist won't tell you why you should want to live or do what you do, a scientist will only tell you how you did it. If there are 12 dimensions, scientists won't tell you why there are twelve, only that they exist. It's up to religion to give these things meaning. You should live your life as a good Christian to go to heaven. The universe has 12 dimensions because God created it this way. There is some universal justice because God dictates it. Science doesn't attempt to justify these things.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

So just because he can't prove something he knows, you know he's wrong? If I see a space shuttle go into space, can you tell me I'm wrong because i don't know how to send a rocket into space?

I didn't say that he is wrong. I said that it is a belief that he saw god and not a certainty that does not require faith as its primary tenet of validating it.

As for your space shuttle example, you chose poorly. Unlike the topic at hand, there is someone on the planet that IS ABLE TO duplicate that.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

Like I said, it's not about belief. Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe religion is the search for truth. Religion is the search for meaning. Science is the search for truth. If you are a Christian fundamentalist, then you believe you already know all of the truth there is to konw and it has meaning for you. If you are a mainstream Christian then you use science to discover truth and religion to attach meaning to that truth. If you are an athiest, then you seek truth but don't attach meaning to it.

You would look at the Universe and say, "We are here because God..." This is your meaning. It explains the why. An athiest would look at the Universe and say, "We are here." The athiest might throw in some scientific theory about bubble universes, brane theory, or the big bang, but all of the explanations will focus on how.

I think the search for truth is a search for meaning, and vice versa. A scientist wants to know how and why, just like a religious person.

I know that's what you think and I'm telling you it's false. In fact, many would claim that science isn't even a search for truth, it's a search for facts. Religion has no place in science as God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Scientists aren't interested in giving things "purpose." A scientist won't tell you why you should want to live or do what you do, a scientist will only tell you how you did it. If there are 12 dimensions, scientists won't tell you why there are twelve, only that they exist. It's up to religion to give these things meaning. You should live your life as a good Christian to go to heaven. The universe has 12 dimensions because God created it this way. There is some universal justice because God dictates it. Science doesn't attempt to justify these things.

I don't think I understand. A scientist tells us more than what exists. They tell us why and how things exist. Evolution theory is testament to that.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

So just because he can't prove something he knows, you know he's wrong? If I see a space shuttle go into space, can you tell me I'm wrong because i don't know how to send a rocket into space?

I didn't say that he is wrong. I said that it is a belief that he saw god and not a certainty that does not require faith as its primary tenet of validating it.

As for your space shuttle example, you chose poorly. Unlike the topic at hand, there is someone on the planet that IS ABLE TO duplicate that.

But as I say, he SAW it. He's not faithful of it, he's knowledgeable of it. He KNOWS it. Knowledge, not faith, is his primary validation.

Regarding there being someone on the planet that is able to duplicate it, suppose there was an eyewitness to this guy's experience who corroborates the story.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

What I find incredible is that billions of people take their belief in a deity so seriously that they shape their lives around the concept. The food they eat, the people they associate with, their idea of what is or is not moral, their philosophy, how they raise their children, who they marry, etc. All based on an unprovable idea.

Atheists go about their lives making decisions without taking into consideration whether their behavior is being judged by an entity who's existence they will never be able to confirm. That seems the only rational way to live to me.

And yet atheists don't tend to make decisions without consulting something they can't prove or confirm externally: their conscience.

Drat. I didn't want to get into this.

This makes absolutely no sense. Your conscience isn't Jimmney Cricket sitting on your shoulder telling you what to do, it is a cognitive function performed by your brain as you try to resolve conflicts. This sort of cognitive work shows up very well in BOLD levels measured by fMRI scans.

 

[KIRBYEE]

.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

Like I said, it's not about belief. Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe religion is the search for truth. Religion is the search for meaning. Science is the search for truth. If you are a Christian fundamentalist, then you believe you already know all of the truth there is to konw and it has meaning for you. If you are a mainstream Christian then you use science to discover truth and religion to attach meaning to that truth. If you are an athiest, then you seek truth but don't attach meaning to it.

You would look at the Universe and say, "We are here because God..." This is your meaning. It explains the why. An athiest would look at the Universe and say, "We are here." The athiest might throw in some scientific theory about bubble universes, brane theory, or the big bang, but all of the explanations will focus on how.

I think the search for truth is a search for meaning, and vice versa. A scientist wants to know how and why, just like a religious person.

I know that's what you think and I'm telling you it's false. In fact, many would claim that science isn't even a search for truth, it's a search for facts. Religion has no place in science as God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Scientists aren't interested in giving things "purpose." A scientist won't tell you why you should want to live or do what you do, a scientist will only tell you how you did it. If there are 12 dimensions, scientists won't tell you why there are twelve, only that they exist. It's up to religion to give these things meaning. You should live your life as a good Christian to go to heaven. The universe has 12 dimensions because God created it this way. There is some universal justice because God dictates it. Science doesn't attempt to justify these things.

I don't think I understand. A scientist tells us more than what exists. They tell us why and how things exist. Evolution theory is testament to that.

Actually, this is the perfect example. Science explains how evolution happens. It is religion that states that it was directed by God for the purpose of creating humans. To science, nearly anything could've resulted had any of the parameters changed. Humans are not the end result, just a stage along this one particular process at this one particular point in time and space.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

What I find incredible is that billions of people take their belief in a deity so seriously that they shape their lives around the concept. The food they eat, the people they associate with, their idea of what is or is not moral, their philosophy, how they raise their children, who they marry, etc. All based on an unprovable idea.

Atheists go about their lives making decisions without taking into consideration whether their behavior is being judged by an entity who's existence they will never be able to confirm. That seems the only rational way to live to me.

And yet atheists don't tend to make decisions without consulting something they can't prove or confirm externally: their conscience.

Drat. I didn't want to get into this.

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

Like I said, it's not about belief. Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe religion is the search for truth. Religion is the search for meaning. Science is the search for truth. If you are a Christian fundamentalist, then you believe you already know all of the truth there is to konw and it has meaning for you. If you are a mainstream Christian then you use science to discover truth and religion to attach meaning to that truth. If you are an athiest, then you seek truth but don't attach meaning to it.

You would look at the Universe and say, "We are here because God..." This is your meaning. It explains the why. An athiest would look at the Universe and say, "We are here." The athiest might throw in some scientific theory about bubble universes, brane theory, or the big bang, but all of the explanations will focus on how.

I think the search for truth is a search for meaning, and vice versa. A scientist wants to know how and why, just like a religious person.

I know that's what you think and I'm telling you it's false. In fact, many would claim that science isn't even a search for truth, it's a search for facts. Religion has no place in science as God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Scientists aren't interested in giving things "purpose." A scientist won't tell you why you should want to live or do what you do, a scientist will only tell you how you did it. If there are 12 dimensions, scientists won't tell you why there are twelve, only that they exist. It's up to religion to give these things meaning. You should live your life as a good Christian to go to heaven. The universe has 12 dimensions because God created it this way. There is some universal justice because God dictates it. Science doesn't attempt to justify these things.

I don't think I understand. A scientist tells us more than what exists. They tell us why and how things exist. Evolution theory is testament to that.

Actually, this is the perfect example. Science explains how evolution happens. It is religion that states that it was directed by God for the purpose of creating humans. To science, nearly anything could've resulted had any of the parameters changed. Humans are not the end result, just a stage along this one particular process at this one particular point in time and space.

Okay, I don't think we disagree there.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

What I find incredible is that billions of people take their belief in a deity so seriously that they shape their lives around the concept. The food they eat, the people they associate with, their idea of what is or is not moral, their philosophy, how they raise their children, who they marry, etc. All based on an unprovable idea.

Atheists go about their lives making decisions without taking into consideration whether their behavior is being judged by an entity who's existence they will never be able to confirm. That seems the only rational way to live to me.

And yet atheists don't tend to make decisions without consulting something they can't prove or confirm externally: their conscience.

Drat. I didn't want to get into this.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Makes sense to me.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

What I find incredible is that billions of people take their belief in a deity so seriously that they shape their lives around the concept. The food they eat, the people they associate with, their idea of what is or is not moral, their philosophy, how they raise their children, who they marry, etc. All based on an unprovable idea.

Atheists go about their lives making decisions without taking into consideration whether their behavior is being judged by an entity who's existence they will never be able to confirm. That seems the only rational way to live to me.

And yet atheists don't tend to make decisions without consulting something they can't prove or confirm externally: their conscience.

Drat. I didn't want to get into this.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Makes sense to me.

So deists don't consult their conscience? I have no idea what you're getting at here. All people regardless of their religious belief consult their conscience when making decisions. The difference is that a deist's conscience and moral compass are informed by supernatural consequences for which there is no evidence.

 

[SAWYER]

I believe in God but let's be honest, which seems more plausible to believe in?

A God who created the Universe or not? Me believing in God can even see that is seems crazier to believe than not.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Okay, I don't think we disagree there.

And then you can see the crux of the argument. Fundamentalists are only concerned with meaning. Ordinary religious folks are usually concerned with truth and meaning. Athiests are primarily concerned with just truth, and often don't think there is a "meaning." God is a way to attach meaning to nearly everything that you experience and observe (almight Creator). Athiests are just concerned with what is, the "truth" (or facts). To an athiest, things just are, and without the need of a Creator. They don't believe in anything else and that train of thought simply stops with "just is." This is much like asking a Christian, "who created God?" Well, God "just was."

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

What I find incredible is that billions of people take their belief in a deity so seriously that they shape their lives around the concept. The food they eat, the people they associate with, their idea of what is or is not moral, their philosophy, how they raise their children, who they marry, etc. All based on an unprovable idea.

Atheists go about their lives making decisions without taking into consideration whether their behavior is being judged by an entity who's existence they will never be able to confirm. That seems the only rational way to live to me.

And yet atheists don't tend to make decisions without consulting something they can't prove or confirm externally: their conscience.

Drat. I didn't want to get into this.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Makes sense to me.

So deists don't consult their conscience? I have no idea what you're getting at here. All people regardless of their religious belief consult their conscience when making decisions. The difference is that a deist's conscience and moral compass are informed by supernatural consequences for which there is no evidence.

I made a mistake in bringing this up, because I didn't want to have an argument about this sort of thing. That wasn't what the original post was about. I'd be happy to debate this elsewhere.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

So just because he can't prove something he knows, you know he's wrong? If I see a space shuttle go into space, can you tell me I'm wrong because i don't know how to send a rocket into space?

I didn't say that he is wrong. I said that it is a belief that he saw god and not a certainty that does not require faith as its primary tenet of validating it.

As for your space shuttle example, you chose poorly. Unlike the topic at hand, there is someone on the planet that IS ABLE TO duplicate that.

But as I say, he SAW it. He's not faithful of it, he's knowledgeable of it. He KNOWS it. Knowledge, not faith, is his primary validation.

Regarding there being someone on the planet that is able to duplicate it, suppose there was an eyewitness to this guy's experience who corroborates the story.

And there have been many that have seen UFOs but that doesn't mean that they do in fact exist.

Unlike the old adage, seeing isn't always believing. Many people BELIEVE that they saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear a few years ago but I'm fairly certain that it didn't go anywhere despite the thousands/millions of eyewitnesses.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

So just because he can't prove something he knows, you know he's wrong? If I see a space shuttle go into space, can you tell me I'm wrong because i don't know how to send a rocket into space?

I didn't say that he is wrong. I said that it is a belief that he saw god and not a certainty that does not require faith as its primary tenet of validating it.

As for your space shuttle example, you chose poorly. Unlike the topic at hand, there is someone on the planet that IS ABLE TO duplicate that.

But as I say, he SAW it. He's not faithful of it, he's knowledgeable of it. He KNOWS it. Knowledge, not faith, is his primary validation.

Regarding there being someone on the planet that is able to duplicate it, suppose there was an eyewitness to this guy's experience who corroborates the story.

And there have been many that have seen UFOs but that doesn't mean that they do in fact exist.

Unlike the old adage, seeing isn't always believing. Many people BELIEVE that they saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear a few years ago but I'm fairly certain that it didn't go anywhere despite the thousands/millions of eyewitnesses.

True, but it remains a possibility.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I would argue that we didn't put any faith at all in our sensory functions as small children. Faith, to me anyway, implies a conscious decision to believe something that you know has a possibility of not being true. I don't think that children have that capability during early, developmental years.

I would also argue that you are being very generous in your definition of faith with regards to knowledge being a subset of it. I have no "faith" that my belief in certain death from a 21 story fall. I know without a doubt (which is what negates it being faith) that it will occur.

Here we go again.

I know I already pointed this question at you once, and we never resolved it.

Suppose you met someone who said they had seen God, and they knew it, without shadow of a doubt. Would you still say it's only faith?

Could they duplicate it? If not, then yes, I would.

So just because he can't prove something he knows, you know he's wrong? If I see a space shuttle go into space, can you tell me I'm wrong because i don't know how to send a rocket into space?

I didn't say that he is wrong. I said that it is a belief that he saw god and not a certainty that does not require faith as its primary tenet of validating it.

As for your space shuttle example, you chose poorly. Unlike the topic at hand, there is someone on the planet that IS ABLE TO duplicate that.

But as I say, he SAW it. He's not faithful of it, he's knowledgeable of it. He KNOWS it. Knowledge, not faith, is his primary validation.

Regarding there being someone on the planet that is able to duplicate it, suppose there was an eyewitness to this guy's experience who corroborates the story.

And there have been many that have seen UFOs but that doesn't mean that they do in fact exist.

Unlike the old adage, seeing isn't always believing. Many people BELIEVE that they saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear a few years ago but I'm fairly certain that it didn't go anywhere despite the thousands/millions of eyewitnesses.

True, but it remains a possibility.

And that is why it would be a belief unlike gravity which is a certainty. You don't HAVE to believe in gravity to be under its control unlike god(s).

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Some of the responses are amazing. It's incredible that people are so zealous in atheism that they argue the very meaning of the word belief.

Like I said, it's not about belief. Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe religion is the search for truth. Religion is the search for meaning. Science is the search for truth. If you are a Christian fundamentalist, then you believe you already know all of the truth there is to konw and it has meaning for you. If you are a mainstream Christian then you use science to discover truth and religion to attach meaning to that truth. If you are an athiest, then you seek truth but don't attach meaning to it.

You would look at the Universe and say, "We are here because God..." This is your meaning. It explains the why. An athiest would look at the Universe and say, "We are here." The athiest might throw in some scientific theory about bubble universes, brane theory, or the big bang, but all of the explanations will focus on how.

I think the search for truth is a search for meaning, and vice versa. A scientist wants to know how and why, just like a religious person.

I know that's what you think and I'm telling you it's false. In fact, many would claim that science isn't even a search for truth, it's a search for facts. Religion has no place in science as God can neither be proven nor disproven.

Scientists aren't interested in giving things "purpose." A scientist won't tell you why you should want to live or do what you do, a scientist will only tell you how you did it. If there are 12 dimensions, scientists won't tell you why there are twelve, only that they exist. It's up to religion to give these things meaning. You should live your life as a good Christian to go to heaven. The universe has 12 dimensions because God created it this way. There is some universal justice because God dictates it. Science doesn't attempt to justify these things.

I don't think I understand. A scientist tells us more than what exists. They tell us why and how things exist. Evolution theory is testament to that.

Actually, this is the perfect example. Science explains how evolution happens. It is religion that states that it was directed by God for the purpose of creating humans. To science, nearly anything could've resulted had any of the parameters changed. Humans are not the end result, just a stage along this one particular process at this one particular point in time and space.

Okay, I don't think we disagree there.

And then you can see the crux of the argument. Fundamentalists are only concerned with meaning. Ordinary religious folks are usually concerned with truth and meaning. Athiests are primarily concerned with just truth, and often don't think there is a "meaning." God is a way to attach meaning to nearly everything that you experience and observe (almight Creator). Athiests are just concerned with what is, the "truth" (or facts). To an athiest, things just are, and without the need of a Creator. They don't believe in anything else and that train of thought simply stops with "just is." This is much like asking a Christian, "who created God?" Well, God "just was."

Well at least we established the OP isn't a fundy.

The only thing that confuses me, is I don't know how much faith the OP actually has in God or in religious teachings.
OP, do you believe we humans were created in the image of the 'Almighty? Because you should disagree with BigDH's statement if that is the case. The Theory of Evolution simply dictates we are a product of the events that happened prior to us, and that there is never an end. Any variable can be entered at any point in time, to force evolution to happen once again. It's a step-based and gradual process. Humans, at this point in time, have no need to evolve, because we have the ability to make tools and other things that allow us to adapt to the environment. Some event may occur that kills many humans, and requires our species to further adapt through evolution. We'd develop likely subtle variations, some would have mutations that are worthless and possibly dangerous, and others would have the good stuff.
Sadly, the nature of humanity, is that good mutations may not get passed on. This is because the best mutations may appear in humans that their society deems as 'ugly'. Natural mate selection has died out, and will be the bane of our existence. Don't get me wrong, I love dating the ladies that can be considered beautiful, or even just decent or good looking, but we are definitely a strange animal.

+