Do you believe in God? - Part 2

[Katadunkass]

I my recent years I have started to change my perspective on whether or not there is a God.

I was Atheist for most of my life, but now take a more agnostic approach as I find a majority of Atheists to be painfully narrow-minded and extremely arrogant in their beliefs that God does not exist. They believe that scientific evidence is proof, when realistically it can and never will explain the beginning of everything. Could a higher being be responsible for creating elements of the life we know?...absolutely. Can sheer science alone explain everything? ...impossible.

And I find it the exact opposite. Sure, some believers are nice, open to talk and all: But they are VERY narrow-minded as they are not open for the possibility that God does not exist. They have to know how the Universe began and they can not afford to be wrong. The word "atheist" has been misused for quiet some time now and modern atheists does not say: "God does not exist." The argument for atheists are: There have been evidence or sign towards a devine being able to create all of this. Atheists do not believe in a God simply because God is not necessary. Sure there are questions which are left to be answered, but to say that science won't be able to answer them, ever, is very close-minded.

What's even more interesting is the argument of evolution. I bet most people don't realise that evolution has never actually been proven. It is still theory, not fact, as we have yet to discover one single piece of fossil evidence that fully confirms it (so far only hints towards it). What's even more interesting is that there are fossils that actually CONTRADICT the theory of evolution...not just one, but many. Museums in fact have been show to even hide these fossils from public viewing.


So what we have is one theory that is considered evidence towards a godless world, that is backed up by unproven hypothesis and another theory hypothesizing that evolution is in fact not true, that is backed up by real evidence and fossil records. Quite ironic when you consider most atheists believe there views are built on fact, not speculation.

If I may I would like to recommend a book to you: Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show On Earth - The Evidence For Evolution
Richard Dawkins also explains in this book why so many people are misguided by the word "theory". In science no thing can ever be 100% proven, that is correct, but to state is as "just a theory" is just plain wrong. Gravity is "just" a theory, but there are more evidences for evolution than for gravity.
Try look at the definition of the word theory:
1. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

2. A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

As you, hopefully, can see, there's a huge difference between the two definitions. The first statement of saying "Scientists can't prove anything" actually came from philosophers who didn't take science well. If you look at this statement we can't even proof that the moon is smaller than the sun, but there are so many evidences for it, that saying otherwise would be ridiculous. The same goes for evolution.
Now, I said before that science can't proof anything 100% and that is indeed correct, but you have to look at where the evidence tells you to look. And so far there are absolutely no evidence for a devine being. If anything you would have to believe in a deistic God, who doesn't interact with our world. This notion, of course, is even more difficult to take than the theistic God.
Science moves on by making observations of nature. If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it. For a statement to have any value you have to be able to disprove in, and there is no way to disprove the existence of a devine being.

I personally believe evolution IS true, based on what I see with my own eyes - the striking similarities between monkeys and humans for example - but if the history of science and human knowledge has taught us anything, it's that we have been certain of truths over and over again, only to have them be dis-proven or turned upside down repeatedly. It is the arrogance of Atheists to believe that their truth is an absolute and a belief in God as closed-minded, when in fact it applies both ways.

Again, modern atheists does not believe their knowledge is absolute. Arrogance comes from people saying: "There is absolutely no God", but arrogance also comes from religious people saying "There absolutely is a God" and in my experience there are way more religious people stating that as a fact than atheists does. Scientists today do not try to disprove God or anything, why? Simply because God isn't needed to explain the world. Sure science have been wrong before, but so has religion - and way more than scientists.

I'm not writing this as a "hate" thingy towards you, not at all, but some people here and around us in general doesn't quiet seem to understand the difference between a "theory" and a "scientific theory". Also, the word "atheist" has been hijacked for quiet some time now and that is why many people take the position as an agnostic atheist, but closer to being a gnostic atheist than an agnostic theist - simply because there aren't any evidence for a devine being.
You are of course allowed to be a doubt towards to notion of a devine being, many people are.