And I provided ‘reason’ why he’s wrong. But of course, like knowledge, reason is only reason when ANGRY likes it.
Any research into an unknown is independent of that unknown. It remains an unknown until an answer is given. Then the problem is no longer there. Since the problem is still there, all possible answers are not illegitimate. All answers exist as independent from the unknown and are therefore able to be taken into consideration.
Well, isn’t it?
Say what one will regarding one’s “belief” in God. Say what one will regarding what one claims to “know” is true about Him.
But does or does not the bottom line [among philosophers and scientists in particular] have to be the extent to which you are in fact able to demonstrate that what you believe about Him “in your head” is that which you can then take out of your head such that you provide actual hard evidence able to convince others they are then obligated to believe and to know it too.
If they wish to be thought of as a rational human being.
Sure, one can define or to deduce God into existence. And one can claim that this is more than just having faith in His existence.
And if that works for them, fine. Just don’t expect it to work for everyone.
Sorry, just because you can blame anyone you want "Jews, blacks,women having the freedom to vote doesn’t mean its reasonable to blame anyone you want. Note the difference how Artimas provides reason. You did not provide reason as for why its reasonable to blame everyone we want. You only provided an assertion that you can blame anyone you want. Well obviously anyone can write anything they want about anything, so what you said was really ineffective upon examination. That doesn’t mean its reasonable.
If the answers to questions like where is the seat of consciousness are not there, and research is futile until now, does that mean there is absolutely a limit as to where we can go from there?
That’s the Hollywood movie. That’s not how it works in real life.
For every genius with an idea, there are tens of thousands of engineers and scientists who make the idea into a useful product. Without them, the idea would die. There are engineers who work out the details, geologists who get raw materials, metallurgists who create new materials, mechanical engineers who design machines that make other machines, industrial engineers who design factories, etc.
Scientific and technological advancement cannot happen without an education system, a communication system, a transportation system and an economic system all of which function effectively together. A vast infrastructure and support system is behind every advance.
You can’t dismiss 60% or 80% or 99% of the people within a society as being irrelevant or obstructive to advancement.
Yep.
I think he was attributing credit to the original idea. But it still does not mean someone who is not an atheist could have similar creative imaginations.
Agree. We can only ponder.
I am just saying that from what I have analyzed so far religion brought a collapse to a civilizations natural advancement just by claiming mathematics evil, yes religion also has beneficial perks, but are they really that worth in comparison of potential civilization education collapses and then huge time delay gaps?
The middle east has still not recovered, proof of their being great at math is arabic numerals and arabic star names. They had a library dedicated to brilliant ideas that no one has seen since the collapse nor will ever see again. Al Ghazali, go look at him.
It is estimated that if the middle east never suffered the educational collapse they would hold almost all if not all of the nobel prizes.
Pondering is knowledge. Pondering is belief.
Prior to Islam, the region was backward.
Then under Islam, during the Islamic Golden Age, the region was rich with scientific, medical and mathematical research and discoveries.
Then still under Islam, there was a suppression of scientific and mathematical research.
Could it be that placing the blame (or credit) purely on something as broad as ‘religion’ is too simplistic?
No it’s neither
Ponder :
v.tr.
To think about (something) with thoroughness and care.
v.intr.
To reflect or consider with thoroughness and care.
thefreedictionary.com/ponder
Yes, thinking about something can lead to a belief or it can lead to knowledge, but it doesn’t mean it is knowledge or belief.
Ponder more aptly can mean
1
: to weigh in the mind : appraise
To weigh in the mind, to ponder, to fathom the possibility, it is a process of thought that may lead to understanding something, and that is knowledge. Or if understanding isn’t achieved, a belief may form. Though neither is necessary for pondering.
sure Life came out of NOTHING… how magical is that? 
As magical as you pushing buttons on a keyboard to others 3,000 miles away and beyond, nearly instantaneously, in which words and letters are formed as pixelated refractions of light?
Well, I wouldn’t think anyone would claim life came out of nothing. Something was there before “life”.
dead wrong… God proven mathematically in this video below, the intelligent design is mathematical… undebunkable… here is why all religions embedded Numbers in their teachings. (which means that they have a lot more in common than differences, as they share the same foundations)
Marty Leeds Live at the Isabel Bader Theatre, Toronto Canada _ Modern Knowledge Tour 8_16_2015
youtube.com/watch?v=jS2-UJBrDoc
I have been a agnostic for about 30 years, made a U-turn 10 years ago and I all I know is that atheists have lost the debate…
Creepy. backs away slowly