Alright, I want a good, clean fight. Simply state your side, your argument/counter-argument/comment and whatnot. I'm not trying to troll this, just wanting a good debate, so let's have one. (Atheist by the way)
i find both sides of such an argument repugnant. perhaps if the purpose is to ease persecution on one’s behalf, then it is slightly more dignified. but honestly, the further [science] progresses, the more efficient it becomes at making predictions, and the more we see that we can recreate anything that exists in nature, as long as we have the materials to do so. eventually we will construct human immortality, singular consciousness, we will ascend to the purest abstract thought, and transcend human language, words, emotions altogether. we will build infinite virtual worlds that are as real as the one we live in, send impulses to our brain to make us feel or believe whatever we want to. humans will themselves become [gods], and subdue the universe, encounter imaginary conflict far grander than that of [darwinism] vs. [intelligent design], and less than halfway across our infinite journey, we will come to realize that words such as [atheism] and [theism] are obsolete. an endless sea of the brightest pawns can debate endless ideas with the same words that cut and fit together like the most (seemingly) elaborate puzzle, with definitions of [god] that are nearly polar opposites, when they themselves in their hypocrisy are desperately far from the capacity to ever comprehend a perfect being, or even a superior being that could create themselves, or even simply themselves. before you can take a look at god and tell him he does or doesn’t exist, first look in the mirror, and see yourself in your present state of material confinement and depravity. why do so many perceive skepticism as closed-mindedness, and in turn that closed-mindedness as a negative force? a disbelief that the material universe around you is reality is equivalent to a belief that something else is reality, or an open-mindedness to the possibility or worlds dominated by laws we can’t comprehend that exist outside the limits of ours. these are essentially the same force. when two ideas both have evidence for them, both evidence against them, the majority of those that place their faith in those ideas will inevitably do so based on merely what they WANT to believe. their is no argument for or against such broad and vague ideas, only room for argument for the evidence, the definition, the details. all else is a matter of where the sunbeams end and the starlight begins. if it’s less than a mystery to you, if it’s less than something you’re open to as a possibility, then i’d advise you take a look in the mirror, but that’s just me.
one last thing that i cannot seem to stress or put out there enough. there is no such thing as [religion]. religion is belief. everyone believes. belief is not the process of going through life and picking ideas to place one’s faith in, it is the process of going through life and recognizing that given the truth of certain premises, something that follows will inevitably be true. everyone does and must establish their thinking based on logic. it is blatantly ignorant to assume that anyone given any [religious] title(christian, atheist, muslim, wiccan, etc.) believes in even remotely the same thing as the majority of those who claim or are given the same label, and it is equally ignorant to assume you know for what reasons they believe it.
if any of this came as less than typical to you, then i am not one of you. you are the normalies. you are responsible for everything that is wrong with our world.