You're supposed to be attacking blind faith. You're like the believers.
I think you guys are great with all the activism but your like atheist nazis sometimes. OMG ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE IS IRRATIONAL.
What other means of testing do you suggest to give us proof of a claim?
i suppose technically im agnostic for saying that saying the paranormal or some sort of divine intervention with the big bang is a possibility.
Everyone on our team is agnostic too. You also are without a belief in a god therefore you are atheist. Sounds like you've fallen prey to bastardixed definitions, here check this out.
not saying i put faith in it. just its possible, because even science can be wrong. I dont follow any faiths, organised religion is a disease indeed but preaching that there is no such thing as paranormal or a higher forces, that its all impossible, is just as bad as preaching that all the stuff in the bible actually happened.
I think maybe you are looking for us to give more respect to claims of the divine and supernatural because so many people hold those beliefs. If I asked you if you would say that flying pink elephants exist or didn't exist I'd be curious of your answer. I am as certain that flying pink elephants don't exist as I am that a god doesn't exist. Is there a chance that flying pink elephants exist? Of course! But the chance is so small that stating "they don't exist" is abundantly more likely than saying the obverse. Sure we leave room for the possibility of God, but that possibility as the evidence and data is presented is so small, that there's really no need to alter ones conversation to allow it the possibility. It's possible that I'm not actually typing this, that in reality a gargoyle is sitting in my place typing these words to you, when I sign my name at the bottom should I mention this possibility? Oh, there's also the possibility that my hands are being guided by the ghost of Benjamin Franklin, need I mention this?
I hope you see where I'm coming from.
we know nothing in comparison to the grand scale of the universe. we could all be part of something bigger, something could of started the spark that started the big bang (after all they say energy cant be created or destroyed so where did it come from?).
Right, coulda woulda shoulda. Among open minded people (of which we are) I think it's relatively understood that when enough evidence comes in to validate a specific claim we will change our beliefs to fit the data. That spark you speak of could've been a mystical toaster, but I don't lend it credit in any conversations I have. Saying it was a mystical toaster has the exact same amount of logic as saying it could've been a god of some sort.
I guess my point is dont be so gung ho about atheism ok?
We're not. I don't give a shit about atheism. Atheism is simply what I'm left with when I am without a god belief (no it's not a 100% denial that no gods can exist). We're gung ho on rational thought and holding beliefs that you can prove as opposed to those you cant.
you know tone it down, dont be so cocky cos you are starting to sound like the "believers".
In what way? Sounding like the "believers" isn't necessarily a bad thing.
remember you should be fighting blind faith.
How are we not. Prove scientifically to us that paranormal claims are legit, that deities exist, and psychics are real. If not, may I suggest people take those things on blind faith. That's what we're fighting, blind faith.
the reason why i added teh RRS is because you make people question their faith, when you commit 100% to something it normally screws up.
Keep in mind you likely committed 100% to your line of thought in this email before you wrote it. In fact not once in this email do you point out that your conceptions of our team could be entirelly misunderstood. You took a certan conversational liberty to present your side of the story as a fact. Now, because I read your words carefully I can tell that you are someone who will be willing to admit you were wrong. I take heed to note that although it appears as if you are presenting an opinion with 100% certainty you didn't need to qualify every statement you made with a disclaimer on its possible truth value, I hope you see that. Because that is exactly what we're doing, it's these actions of ours that you've accused us of being just like "the believers." So it seems we're all like the believers now, no biggie... we have other things in common too like DNA.
Balance is what needs to be taught.
Go ahead and teach it. We work on teaching rationality. For example you'll never see us teaching faith and reason with balance... NEVER.
believe what you like in your head just dont push it on the people
You mean like you're doing in this email? There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to believe what you do, the believers do this, I do this, and apparantly you do too.
dont preach it so loudly and its definately not worth dying for something that isnt 100% proven.
I think thats sort of obvious. I'd add to that, there is nothing I know of that can be 100% proven, however you can get to 99.9 (with a line over top).
thats whats wrong with religion, people will die for it and religion means nothing.
Religion means nothing? OH NO!! You just made a 100% claim and you didn't qualify it!! I'm just playing around, but hopefully you get the point. Basically I'm saying you just wasted 45 minutes of my life because you didn't apply your own rules to yourself. An honest introspection would have showed you that you're "just like the believers" too.
again im not an angry christian or anything i dont believe in deities or paranormal things i just consider them one possibility among many and in my opinion not considering every possibility is irrational.
Yes, they are one possibility. They're about as likely as leprechauns, ogres, unicorns, fairies, pixies, whosematzits, snarfwidgets, and whatchamacalits.
(although this could be a letter written by the ghost of Benjamin Franklin in which he's steered my hands, or an infinite amount of other possibilities)