The problem with science is: 100% of this data comes to us through only our five senses. And, we have no idea what ratio of the spectrum of available data, which exists in universe, we are actually able to receive through these senses. We also have no idea of exactly how efficient our ability to extrapolate this data is. We have no measuring stick, no comparatives for such things.

We are unable to ever rule out the unknown quantity. We can not ever know if forces or events that we can not perceive are acting upon the universe which, if known, could possibly change the entire context and meaning of the available data. Uncertainty seems to be woven into the very fabric of the universe, or at least into the very fabric of our existence.

Science is severely flawed because it can never, ever tell us how the universe operates. It can merely only ever tell us how we, for the time being, and from our vantage point, are perceiving the operation and mechanism of the universe. And, there may or may not be a gigantic difference between the two.

For these reasons, we are ultimately forced to accept anything and everything that science tells us almost entirely on faith - just as we are forced to accept anything and everything religion tells us on faith. In this manner, science is a religion."

Science and religion are both ideologies that we choose to subscribe to, largely as an act of faith. The fundamental purpose of each is to explain our existence and the nature of the universe in which we live. No matter whether we choose to subscribe to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Physics etc., etc. to explain the nature of the human experience.. Ultimately, we have no proof that our beliefs are accurate. Ultimately, we accept what we accept on faith.

No one can say with certainty how valid our current views of physics are, just as no one can say how valid our current understanding of any religion's teachings are. Our current understanding of science ultimately carries the same chance of accuracy as any given religious belief. Tell that to a scientist and he may tell you that it is not so - but, he will tell you this because you have challenged his religious beliefs, and he accepts the infallibility of the ideology which he has chosen to subscribe to. Which is, by the way, exactly how many Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc., will react if you challenge their belief systems.

A religious person believes what he believes because he accepts, on faith, the ultimate accuracy of the teachings of his religion. A scientific person believes what he believes because he accepts, ultimately on faith, the usefulness of the scientific method and the current teachings of science. Neither holds proof that what he believes is indeed truth. Science holds no way of proving to us that any religion is inaccurate; religion holds no way of proving to us that science is inaccurate. We accept what we accept on faith."

To once again bring Godel’s Theorem into the discussion: The theorem states, (oversimplified for the purposes of illustration) that any system lacks sufficient information, in and of itself, to adequately explain itself. If we are to gain a total understanding of any given model or system, we must gain this understanding, at least in part, from the system that it is existing within. This can be demonstrably shown through a number of various thought experiments. (i.e. "Godel's universal truth machine")

However, unless the universe is infinite, then at some point, we will become aware of a final system, which exists independent of any other systems, yet contains all other systems within itself. So, does Goedel’s theorum not apply to this final system? Or, once we arrive at this final system, does it ultimately remain inexplicable?

I suppose that if you look at things this way, the final system, no matter of its nature can be seen as ‘god’. It stands to reason then that atheists and theists alike, would then both accept the existence of ‘god’, and the argument isn’t over the reality of god’s existence, but rather the nature of that existence. I.e. – is this final system sentient?

One would rationality have to conclude that it is in fact sentient, as each system contained within this final system is a part of the ultimate. We know for a fact that we exist; we know that we are sentient. So, the debate isn’t even really whether or not ‘god’ is sentient. An atheist would have to accept ‘god’ as being sentient. The question, it would seem, then becomes: do we, ourselves represent the height of god’s sentience.

What alternative do you suggest? Is it that we should abandon all faith? Impossible. All humans, even you, employ the use of faith on a regular basis, every single day. We cannot operate without it. Perhaps you just mean to abandon faith in religion and only subscribe to beliefs that we have been able to gather hard evidence for?

Well, that would leave us with science, which is of course also a religion.. a religion which one must exercise a good deal of ‘faith’ in order to comply with. And, a religion which has given us the atom bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the neutron bomb, chemical & biological weapons, etc., etc.

The misguided use of religious beliefs may give us excuses and the will to carry out our evil deeds, but the misguided use of science gives us the means to carry out those deeds much more efficiently and vigorously. If someone’s ‘faith’ tells them to kill all unbelievers, they’re not much of threat if all they have is a good sized stick… but give them a 20 megaton nuke and a few thousand liters of sarin gas….

Religion isn’t the problem; its certain people’s use of it that is the problem."

"This was my point. Not that religion is bad and we are better off without it, and not that science is bad and we are better off without it... my point is that they are both double-edged swords and susceptible to our misuse.

The world has been given many great things as a result of religion, and many great things as a result of science. The world has also seen many great evils carried out in the name of religion and many great evils carried out in the name if science.

It is useless to blame religion or science for any of these evils. The blame does not lie there. The blame lies in the misuse of these things by certain misguided people. The blame usually lies in ignorance, hatred and many of man's other shortcomings."

However, with the Atheistic option, there will come a time when there is absolutely no record of any of your actions anywhere. There will come a time when not you, nor the person whom you committed your deeds against, nor any living person will have any awareness whatsoever of the acts that were committed. Everything you have ever done will be permanently erased.

For this reason, if the atheistic philosophy is correct, then only this life matters, and this life is finite. Rationally, one’s highest purpose would be to make this life as enjoyable as possible for his or herself, through any means available to them, regardless of how it might affect others. Ultimately, anyone who is wronged or injured in any way by you isn’t going to care. Ultimately, you are not going to care, you will feel no guilt, no shame, no remorse. Ultimately, the
person you wronged will have no knowledge of the evil committed against them. Ultimately, it will not matter, to anyone.

If the atheistic view is correct, then morality is a useless and damaging trait. Yet, the atheists I have known seem to delude themselves into believing otherwise. My feeling is that they inherently understand right from wrong, and are compelled to observe their own sense of morality. However, to admit to it’s uselessness in the absence of God, they would be tempted to admit that something
within them exists which is more than the sum of their biological parts. They possess something that comes from somewhere other than within their own biological mass. So, they invent a twisted logic about how morality is MORE important if there is no God and there is no continuation of existence beyond the physical."