religion doesn't require thinking.

plus, it's easier to convince people they need to give thier gold to you so they can get into heaven than to convince them to give thier gold to you because you know the scientific explanation.

Christianty made it so that the whole thing is about faith just so that no one can question.

I'm not saying the religion is wrong for other people to practice. I just think that maybe they should stop contradicting themselves. As an aetheist, I deny religion. FOR ME as an individual it's wrong but if the neigbor next door wants to go to church every sunday, then good for him. But really, why believe in something that teaches you things that could be false? Would you rely on false hope? I would rather believe on something more reasonable. And the reason why people force questions upon Christians is because their beloved bible seems to know everything. For evrey explanation God made, it always has the same message, "I am the almighty creator" blah blah blah. We need something more reasonable.

God works in msyterious ways

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive senses
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of
intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable
- ex·plain·able /-'splA-n&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·plain·er noun
- explain oneself : to clarify one's statements or the reasons for one's conduct
synonyms EXPLAIN, EXPOUND, EXPLICATE, ELUCIDATE, INTERPRET mean to make something clear or understandable. EXPLAIN implies a making plain or intelligible what is not immediately obvious or entirely known <explain the rules>. EXPOUND implies a careful often elaborate explanation <expounding a scientific theory>. EXPLICATE adds the idea of a developed or detailed analysis <explicate a poem>. ELUCIDATE stresses the throwing of light upon as by offering details or motives previously unclear or only implicit <elucidate an obscure passage>. INTERPRET adds to EXPLAIN the need for imagination or sympathy or special knowledge in dealing with something <interpreting a work of art>.

A true explanation leads directly to understanding. We explain the unknown with the known, in hopes that the unknown may one day become known. In the case of trees silently moving, you can most certainly explain this phenomena. This is good.
A religious person could very well say that, but in no way does that make it any more true. As you demonstrated above, we can explain exactly what is going on behind the movement of the trees. We can demonstrate a definate causal relationship behind the movement and the wind. The same can not be said in this instance. A religious individual can not demonstrate that a "God" has a causal relation to the movement of trees or the effects of wind in general.

If a religious person were to say this, it would not be an explanation. As an explanation allows us to understand an often unknown phenomena, we would expect that if subscribing a "God" to the wind was truly an explanation, such a relationship could be demonstrated. No such relation can be shown.

Saying that God causes the wind or created the universe is equivalent to saying that KGHSDAHA causes the wind or that ajknhjkldfHABV created the universe. In these cases, we are attempting to explaining the unknown with the less known, or the unknowable. In many cases where a religious believe understands God to be an explanation to the cosmological problem, in reality, that same "explanation" is almost entirely meaningless, nonsensical, incoherent, and in no way does it truly help us to understand what is happening in our universe.
We have been over this before. But, I'll make it quick this time. That is a hasty generalization, and is simply not true.
Refer to my post about George H. Smith's tool box analogy as well as the meaning behind my dubious nature towards faith. Wait till someone responds to my list of questions on the nature of faith, maybe then we will have something to actually discuss.
We can show how "science" is a form of examining the truth. No one has yet to show me how "religion" is even capable of examination, let alone examination of 'the truth.'

Depends on what you are talking about. A great deal of things are subjective, morality, beauty, intellectual taste, and any other number of human experiences. However, The truth, as the truth corresponds with reality, is objective.

"The apple is red. The car is there. God exists. George W. Bush does not exist."

Those are all objective propositions. As in, they have truth values and their truth values can not be determined by the subject.

You're still applying tools of logic to an issue that requires nothing but faith, which is exactly my point: That logic doesn't really work here. You can explain logically why it's foolish to believe in a God, yet that clearly doesn't counteract faith.

So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

And how many times will I have to ask?

What other tools are there?

Why doesn't logic work here, and what does work and why?

Counteract what?

What exactly is faith?

I don't think there are other tools. My point is that there's really no way to argue one way or the other. That's the point I have been making. Nothing works when one side is relying on faith, and the other is applying logic.

And, as I said in the beginning, what's the point? I don't care about one person's personal beliefs, as long as they don't affect me; if they affect me, then I'll deal with that issue, but not the issue of that person's faith. What is so important about showing a religious believer the (perceived) error in their thinking and reasoning? If his belief isn't affecting your life, why does it matter? If his belief is affecting your life, why not deal with that issue, rather than attacking his beliefs?

religion doesn't require thinking.

plus, it's easier to convince people they need to give thier gold to you so they can get into heaven than to convince them to give thier gold to you because you know the scientific explanation.

Funny thing is, the Catholic Church does not require its members to give them money. So I doubt the motivation is money.

The point is to discredit faith in the first place.

However, you obviously don't have any ambition to participate in this debate. So, unless you feel like contributing, stop posting about how futile and useless you think the debate is.

Also, note strongly that your argument against debating this issue can be applied to nearly any other philosophical problem. We already went through this, contribute or stop. Please and thank you.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how everyone is too good for this debate topic.

The point is to discredit faith in the first place.

However, you obviously don't have any ambition to participate in this debate. So, unless you feel like contributing, stop posting about how futile and useless you think the debate is.

Also, note strongly that your argument against debating this issue can be applied to nearly any other philosophical problem. We already went through this, contribute or stop. Please and thank you.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how everyone is too good for this debate topic.

It seems like you are attacking rather than debating.  Mipadi's contributions to this thread have been thoughtful and insightful.  His comments do contribute to this debate and raise valid issues.

Your attempt to proclaim logic and science as the paragon of life seems to be a personal vendetta against those who value other measures of quality and worth.  Even though you have managed to proclaim your allegiance to science, you have yet to offer any rationale that vaults it to the lofty position you claim it holds.

Yes, I too have a wealth of education in the sciences and logic, but find my personal compass guided by more than what can be proven.  It's pompous to believe that science has the capacity to interpret the entirety of the universe and humankind.  It is only one mechanism of understanding and interpretation of life that is as valid as believing in God is.

Your absolute zeal for scientific rationalization will never serve as the authority/seal of approval of my personal observations.  That belief makes a false assumption that someone other than me is the determinant of my reality and able to dictate how I exercise my freewill.  To surrender that gift to science is the very thing you are criticizing religion for doing.

While you have an extensive vocabulary and value logic, remember, your opinion of life remains nothing more than a personal belief.  The attempt you are making to force it to the point of absolute truth is an exercise in futility.

Like I said, we are here to debate God's existence. So far all the answers that were given either tries to prove that nothing can beat faith or science. Truth be told, we may never find the answer. We have to cling to what we strongly believe in. However we can't help but prove out sometihng that helps us create a theory. Either God exists or doesn't. If God doesn't exist, what about the other gods. The Islamic God or the Hindu God. Why is it that we have a much trouble debating the Christian God than other gods in general? Nowadays it's hard to find proof that there is even a god. I don't believe there is even a single god. You guys can stick to whatever god you're faithful to, but I'll stick to my belief. Nowadays what can faith do? I want to know what's out there. If God is willing to make known himself in the olden days and not now, so be it. If he wants to hide the proof he doesn't even exist (if he actually does), so be it. To me he's just a technique to get people to live a good and moral life.