Of course he won't reveal himself! It wouldn't be a test then, would it? I don't know why he revealed himself to those people who've been dead lo these many years though.

[EDIT]

I tried it, it doesn't work, therefore I don't believe it. How can you possibly expect otherwise? I don't believe those ads in my spam folder either, no matter how much they claim to tell the truth.

Actually, I've read a couple scholarly books on religion, and can't see how the authors could possibly believe what they're writing about could be true. Maybe the Pope and all those cardinals are the trolls.

Wow. Well, no point in providing any scientific evidence to you, eh?

EDIT:

Yep, definitely no point.

What can I say. I'm a results guy; I side with practice over theory. Sue me. Or get better results.

REVISION!!!!!!!!:

Lack of proof of what? Human nature? If you've got some proof, answer the first question. If anything, all I've heard in this thread is bitching about how people ignore scientific facts. Is this not expected behavior?

"Let's pretend the experiment proved God existed. I'd bet good money the worldwide percentages of believers wouldn't change 1%."
Maybe we're talking about a different definition of proof but you make it sound like it would be the same if God knocked on everyone's doors and said "Sup. I'm God." then pulled off some pretty mindbending stuff.

I must have missed a joke somewhere. I guess I'm slow that way.

Everyone assumes everyone is closed minded.

{"name":"sheeple.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332.png","w":376,"h":401,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/5\/75d5173ae2ef56fa4b16d1367c572332"}

If you're referring to my comments, I never once specified atheists ... or which God ... technically, my still-open question wasn't even religion-specific ...

Cool story, bro.

Firstly, being closed-minded is not the same as being a "sheep" (i.e., brainless; a blind follower). Being closed-minded is refusing knowledge without reason, whereas being a sheep is following the group instead of making ones own decisions.

Secondly, I don't believe that most people are closed-minded about most things. On the contrary, many people are open to change their views on many things. For example, a computer programmer should easily be able to enlighten most anyone with an opinion on how software works. An automotive mechanic should easily be able to enlighten most anyone with an opinion on why their car doesn't work. Etcetera. You'd only really affect the people that care, of course. You can't expect somebody that doesn't care to absorb all of the shared wisdom, but that's indifference, not closed-mindedness.

Apparently I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Do me a favor and link to these "comments" so I see what point you're trying to make right now...

Hmmm...if it was 'proven'........'proved'..........no, 'proven' (went all 'Picollo' there for a sec) I would change my belief........so I guess I'm Agnostic and not Atheist...huh, this thread was worth starting, I learned something about myself.

By the by 23, and Neil too (and others too!) I really didn't start this thread very well, or how I had intended; what I should have asked is, does your understanding and structure of your faith change in response to scientific discovery/new understanding of our being, etc?

If, as 23 said very early on, there is no link at all between [my understanding of] science vs [my understanding of] religion then please, disregard my OP and give me time to learn more.......much more.

However this whole thing turns out, please do accept that I don't question your beliefs or faith and am open to accepting I'm wrong about what I believe to be true (which states: there is no God, Evolution IS happening and the Universe is one big expanding space that started....well, if I knew that... ), and am open to accept as my truth what you believe to be the truth, if as you say it could ever be proved (not saying that you WANT me to believe what you believe, just emphasising that I'm open to all paths).

In a way, I like to think everyone here would believe what is freaking me out (the reason for all this 'debating' in the first place!) was true, IF it could be.....proved.

I don't know why I believe WHAT I believe to be true, and at the same time need you to PROVE to me what YOU believe to be true in order for me to accept it; maybe someone more intelligent than myself (a few of you here I know!) could explain that phenomenon to me!

Unless I've severely misunderstood this; your hinting at me having no imagination? I can happily, nay ecstatically defend myself on this being a falsehood, with a whole range of media, text and spoken word. Really, imagination and creativity is all I have...really!

This is a long-standing thing that they're taught when they're children and has nothing to do with science as far as the child is concerned. They just believe it because a grown-up told them (like anything else). Hell, to this day I still don't have scientific proof the Earth is round. I believe it, but that has nothing to do with science.

What can I say? It was an improvement on his.

Why do we want to persuade others that what we believe is true, and what they believe is not? we can't prove what we believe anyway.

Scientists can and do that every day. You just have to realise that proving something merely involves providing overwhelming evidence for it.

More than half of the site is under construction... and the first argument is completely nonsense. If this were true, where would all the sattelites be orbiting/taking pictures from?

EDIT: As for breaking the first argument: They say light is a wave, and because of that, it has to travel trough something so the "ether" must exist. Light is an electromagnetic wave which can easily travel trough a vacuum like space.