God isn't the supreme engineer, though indirectly you could say so, the flaws in animals are the effect of a previous cause (karma).
A fantasy to which there is no supporting evidence.
Evolution is true to some extent, but incomplete and lacking, since our knowledge is still incomplete and lacking.
A logical fallacy called an appeal to incredulity. You can't explain it, therefore it must be incomplete or lacking.
The social reasons you speak of really only apply to the Catholic Church. Prior to this religions existed for many other reasons.
The social reason he wrote of apply to all religions. I've yet to see a religion that didn't conform to one or more of these social reasons at least in part. There may be additional reasons for religious superstition, but it would seem he's named the most prominent. Is there and extant or extinct religion that you know of that
doesn't have one or more of these social reasons?
The celestial teapot idea was thought up just as an atheistic argument, therefore we can be pretty certain that they are wrong, since there are no celestial teapot worshippers, it is simply an idea thought up to prove theists wrong.
And yet, the celestial teapot argument still stands. You cannot disprove nor prove its existence or lack thereof. The same standards apply to theistic mythology and superstition. The various gods of humanity can neither be proved or disproved in the exact same way as the celestial teapot. Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it. It holds.
The fact is that neurologists still don't know what causes consciousness and how we gain consciousness, making an immaterial mind or soul much more plausible than a celestial teapot, since the area is still UNKNOWN.
More argument from personal incredulity. Just because something is unknown, doesn't mean there are supernatural forces at work. There need not be a god applied as explanation just because one human (or even all) can't fathom the explanation. Moreover, I'd suggest that science has more understanding and evidence of the nature of consciousness than you know or wish to admit. But even if it didn't, not knowing in no way, shape, or form suggests that there is any more plausibility to a "soul" than a celestial teapot.
But evidence of some type can be gathered for anything if it really exists. The only difference is that atheists choose to forcefully reject any evidence of any kind.
Precisely. Yet, the superstitious go on with their claims of the supernatural with regards to all manner of gods, angels and zombie saviors. Without a shred of evidence. There isn't even a shred of
real evidence that can be rejected, so your comment about atheists is not valid. It is the freethinker and the critical minded that reject unsupported supernatural claims and the evidence of ancient poets. And rightfully so.
If I some how provided concrete, undeniable evidence of a soul, God, or afterlife, you would hear a bunch of atheists coming on saying they KNOW its all a hoax some how.
Really. Show it instead of speculating. What would this "concrete, undeniable evidence" be like? A bit difficult to describe something that doesn't apparently exist, eh? But if it did, and it was "concrete" and "undeniable" enough that it could be tested or at least potentially falsified, then it should be enough. No longer would the concept of "souls," "gods," "afterlives" and the like be proved, but they would no longer be considered supernatural, since they would now have natural explanations.
Eventually the soul-mind will be proven true, if it really is true.
I wouldn't hold my breath. But I'm willing to be surprised. I hope you're right.
Scriptures of the past said that in reality only an instant exists, all imaginable realities are happening at once, reality has no independant existence, etc...eventually this was proven true, however in the past it was laughable, false, etc...
There are no "scriptures" worth their weight in paper or papyrus. Not a one. Each has their flaws, mainly that they were authored by superstitious cult leaders that had the task of containing their adherents. Not only are every holy scripture I've ever read filled with internal inconsistencies and flaws, but cross-culturally they are often inconsistent among themselves as well as contradictory. This immediately implies that at least some if not most are wrong, before even identifying internal inconsistencies and flaws.
Scriptures discarded to the bin. On to the next "evidence."
Actually, I previously stated that science is great and useful, but still incomplete. However I wouldn't expect an atheist who believes he already knows it all to understand this. They cannot handle the fact that whatever he currently believes in science is probably completely WRONG or incomplete in some manner.
I'm sure there are some ignorant and undereducated atheists out there. But educated freethinkers -the critically minded- already understand that science is incomplete. Were it to be complete, it wouldn't be called science but history. But to suggest that whatever is currently believed in science is "probably completely wrong" demonstrates ignorance and under-education if it is truly believed. Incomplete, yes. Probably wrong -not by a long shot. If this were even
close to being true, the various sciences wouldn't be so interconnected and supporting. Biology informs psychology. Physics informs chemistry. Chemistry informs biology. And so on. This is but one proof that science is getting it right -and anti-science types are unable to show otherwise.
There's a fallacy in this. There's no clear evidence that God as described by the scriptures, or a soul, or an afterlife are false.
There's a fallacy in
this. It's called begging the question. God is real because it's defined by a myth. The myth is real because it's defined by god. Poppycock.
Also what you're saying is that if you lived in the 1600s you would be certain that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because the evidence at the time pointed to this being true.
What he's saying is that there is a collection of methods of discovering truth that involves observation and testing which allows for itself to be revised and corrected over time, regardless of the "truths" held. These methods are called science. Religion abhors such methods, as they are inherently skeptical and inquisitive -two things that bring heresy to religious superstition faster than Doubting Thomas ever could have.
