"Let's be real. You are proud that you "don't believe". However, if you are 17 years old as you say you are, you have not had the time to develop the scientific skills to prove what you claim to believe about evolution (as a source of life, the universe, and everything). Nor have you had the time to objectively examine the possibility of the existence of God or gods. You are exercising the same amount of faith as a devoutly religious person. So instead of saying that you don’t believe in God/gods, you would be more accurate to say that science is your god, seeing that you have chosen to blindly believe what scientist (or school teachers) have said. You have accepted the “findings” of others without applying the discipline to objectively search out the matter for yourself."I'll deal with the first paragraph for now.
"Nor have you had the time to objectively examine the possibility of the existence of God or gods. You are exercising the same amount of faith as a devoutly religious person."
Objectively examine? I don't see any evidence and I have most certainly looked. If you can supply me with substantiated and incontrovertible evidence, I will most gladly accept the existence of your particular god. As for the semantic arguments for deities, I find none of them in any way compelling and most can and have, in fact, be quite easily refuted.
My apprehension to believe without evidence or reason to is not an act of faith. It is simply me not being selective as what I apply my skepticism to. My unbelief in pixies, for instance, is not a faith based position. I will remain skeptical of their existence until you can successfully persuade me that they do indeed exist. I await evidence.
"you would be more accurate to say that science is your god, seeing that you have chosen to blindly believe what scientist (or school teachers) have said. You have accepted the “findings” of others without applying the discipline to objectively search out the matter for yourself."
Now that's quite presumptuous.
Firstly, I follow logic and reason. I look at what's presented to me and base my understanding on the proof and sensicality of the material that I am presented with. Science is certainly not my "god".Secondly, I don't need to have a life experience to be reasonable or logical. Logic is not dependent on age, and my age has nothing to do with it.
Thirdly, nobody trusts individual scientists. Scientists are people, and people are all-too commonly subject to bias and error. However, science as a process is a different thing altogether. It is based upon contemporary and critical peer review of each and every scientists findings. Because of the competition involved between these individuals, all trying to scrutinise and disprove another's hypothesis whilst validating their own, the truth emerges.
If someone was able to completely annihilate the theory of evolution with a revolutionary idea that was corroborated by substantial evidence, it would enter the cold and calculating process of peer review. If it survived this overwhelmingly rigourous and wonderfully critical (and also, unending) process, it would then be accepted as a valid hypothesis and researchers would proceed to integrate the old knowledge with the new data. It's a refreshingly self-corrective process.
Due to the exacting nature of the scientific method and the ruthless and uncompromising procedure of peer review, truth is able to seep through the cracks of human error and vested interests.
I trust this method and it proves itself everyday.
Faith has nothing to do with it.
