Metal Reviews

I agree with Seinfeld.
Science has "faith" in numerous "theorys", so what is the difference?
Can science prove evolution beyond theory?
Can science explain what life is and where does it go when it ends?
Isn't it an axiom of physics that all physical energy does not simply disappear, it simply transmutates, e.g., water into steam, etc?
Can Science explain just exactly what time is, in words?
Can science measure the universe? The distance between galaxies? It can "theorize", buts thats about it.
What about the various theorys regarding electricity?
We take it on good faith that electrical current is the flow of electrons that occurs when a difference in potential is acheived across a physical body. And that in digital logic, 1 and 1 = 1, while 0 and 1 = 0, 1 and 0 = 0, 0 and 0= 0, etc.
You can't see these things, yet they exist.
Sounds an awful lot like faith, to me.


I have no need for religion, personally, but if some derive something positive from it, what the fuck's the problem?
Everbody has their own life experience to learn from, what works for you may not work for me, etc.

As for this:



I call bullshit.
Religion, like science, is a human invention.
The problem is not religion any more than it is science; the problem is the nature of Man.
Without science, there would be no hydrogen bombs, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. So tell me again what will ultimately be the thing that wipes us out (barring some form of natural disaster, of course)?"

Science does test its theories, in a more stringent way than religion does. Not to discount religion at all, but there is far more of a difference than you're making out - science may have created the atomic bomb, religion makes it ok to use it on people.

Religion does not rely on rationalism and empiricism to establish its claims. Science does. Religion claims moral authority. Science does not.

The problem is not religion any more than it is science; the problem is the nature of Man.

If you look at history, Galileo etc, then religion being wrong and science being right is a pretty noticeable trend

How so? Just because science has made some pretty impressive strides through the ages, does not mean that god does not exist.
Some theologians posit that the very spark of intelligence which allows for such things is "proof" of a divine being.
I neither agree or disagree with that idea, but it is food for thought.


Until someone can supply proof that there is no creator, atheists are relying just as much on faith as the believers.
Truth is, nobody knows, one way or the other.
How can any thinking person not see this?

Atheists do not have the burden of proof. Furthermore, the idea of God is conveniently malleable to ad hoc exceptions and other such lovely fallacies that the falsification becomes quite impossible. Theologians have had to adapt their concept of god continually increasing the vagueness of his characteristics to the increasingly critical analysis' of philosophers.

Atheists do not have the burden of proof.

Dictionary dot com is shit and almost every atheist would argue vehemently against that definition. Aheism is a doctrine and a belief the same way baldness is a hair color.

hahaha... I really can't take you even a little bit seriously...
the dictionary is wrong, now?
talk about twisting things to fit your own agenda.

White Metal shit like Never Walk Alone.

How so? Just because science has made some pretty impressive strides through the ages, does not mean that god does not exist.

If you look at history, Galileo etc, then religion being wrong and science being right is a pretty noticeable trend