This whole universe ( including my body and the feelings) is in my mind. Is it an illusion or not I do not know. Does it matter? Last time I felt hungry, I had to eat.

I think science(ism) is simply another religion. Here are the assumptions:
1: assume that you exist and senses tell you the truth (whatever truth is).
2. Assume that other people that you see also exist and they are similar to you.
Do a physical experiment (observation). Let another person do that same experiment (observation. If similar observation, make a theory out of it. believe it.

That is more or less what science is. Also what most of us do.

Here is the definition of God based religion:
1. Take it for a fact that god exists.
2. Explain everything based on the first assumption.

What I think an interesting thing to do is to study the very thing that created god and observes science. The Mind.

I completely concur that everyone is agnostic, in that they are not sure. Certainty, implies belief and faith, especially in reference to this subject.

Have a great one and thanks for commenting!

This is dead wrong. Agnostics are people who posses the intellectual honesty to admit that they don’t know. The only people who “know” are dead. Every living person is agnostic, some people have enough integrity to admit it.

This is an absolute load of rubbish – where is the evidence for this statement? This is such an awful and – more importantly – completely false stereotype of atheists. Irrational beliefs are not the source of our personality any more than they are the source of our morals. It suggests that you need religion to have emotions. How misguided can you be?

Citing the fact that past musicians or artists were religious (as were the vast majority of the population) proves nothing. Nature itself is beautiful enough to inspire. It is ability and hard work that leads to great accomplishments. Imagine what mankind could have achieved both artistically and technologically if it had neer been hindered by religion.

Oh, where to begin. If you feel that you must pray for me, please feel free to do so. It can’t hurt.

If god exists and answers the prayers of the faithful a simple thing like turning on a light should be no problem for an omnipotent and omniscient god. If you argue that ‘god doesn’t do that kind of thing’ then are you suggesting that your all powerful deity has limitations? Wait, I’ve heard this one too, god doesn’t do it because he limits himself. Riiiiggghhhht. Bogus.

What studies? The most recent study on intercessory prayer should that patients actually did WORSE when prayed for, than when not. So, whatever study you are referencing is almost certainly an older study that may have been flawed in some way. You’ve had prayers answered? Really? Have you ever sat down and tried to figure out if you got something you wanted without praying for it? One of my personal favorites: “God answers all prayers, but they aren’t always the answers we want.” Gobbledegook. That doesn’t MEAN anything.

More later.

I do know where to begin. With prayer that God opens your eyes, since it is obvious that you are blinder than a bat.

Your little diatrible about “pray the lights on” and so forth was not an exercise in “science” verses prayer or anything else. It was an exercise in your foolishiness attempting to make an invalid point. There have been double blind prayer studies showing the effectiveness of prayer. I have had specific prayers answered, both small and great over a period of 20 years. That, my friend cannot be rationalized away. And, I might add, I am just ONE person.

Prayer wins over flawed attempts at “science.”

Yes, I have read the comments. I forgot to applaud you for recognizing the fallacies of atheism. Yet you also fail to see that in your other argument you parrot their little montra, “there is no evidence.” No, there is evidence but you dismiss it irrationally so that you can have the invalid excuse to be able to claim there is none. There is a difference.

And what’s so “crazy” about accepting what the Creator said, that He made the world in six days as we know them?

And no, religion has not “poisoned” discourse. People like yourself play special pleading games by bringing up how the Church dealt with Galilleo, and you forget all the good that people of the Church has brought to the world of literature, science, social services, care for the sick, human rights, etc.

I could give you a long list of scientists besides Mendel who were either Christians or who were heavily influenced by Christianity so that this influence helped them positively affect the world.

Even with your writing you expose the fallacy of special pleading and distortion. No one is opposing the teaching of science to children. We are opposed to teaching pseudo-science as if it were pure science to children without giving all the facts to them.

Ever heard of the story about the high school biology teacher, Roger DeHart, who lost his job because he dared to teach any flaws of evolution (and no, he is no Christian “creationist”). What were they afraid of? Please. Give me a break. Who’s poisoning discource now?

And there is direct, empirical evidence of God. He said so in Ps. 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20. Even unbelieving scientists are coming out and saying the world looks designed. Anthony Flew, former atheist, was convinced by the SCIENTIFIC evidence he saw, as especially the Greek of Romans 1:20 makes clear that what God created is objectively and empirically verifiable. So if you want to claim that, go right ahead. It simply means that either you have not honestly looked at the evidence comprehensively, or you have dismissed it so that you can have this excuse.

Truth: 2
Dishonest claims: -0

Personally, I don’t believe in religion but I sure do like my Christmas holiday season.