Science.

Science, my friends, is the only true source of knowledge. Whether is is from observation, or experimentation, any knowledge not backed by scientific evidence is not knowledge at all. The fact of the matter is, that science is the study of learning more based on what we know. We build our assumptions off of proven facts and theories, all of which supported by that which is in tangible, which is solid. This is a very good reason not to believe in religion, because religion is not based off of what we can know. Religions are all centered around "faith", and assumptions on the existence of a god.

The thing about religion is that it calls upon its followers to believe in god simply because they are supposed to. They never offer any proof as to why god exists. Meanwhile, many religions also insist upon the validity of bizarre stories and properties about this god of theirs, which have been disproved  by science. Examples include: The origin of the world, the age of the world, the reliability of medicine (as opposed to god himself) the census taken in Rome at the time of Jesus' birth, etc. All of these things have been rejected by cold hard fact. So let's summarize: There's a conflict in 2 ideas. One of them stems from an old text, telling stories which contain ideas that defy the known laws of physics and nature, preaches the existence of a supreme being who somehow controls everything, and offers no explanation or scientific proof as to why we should believe these. The other idea is based off of known and proven facts about the universe, which have been carefully tested by scientists and historians over the ages, and are proven to be true based on laws of science, logic, and reasoning.

So it bothers me, as you can see, that people buy into the former idea largely because they were raised that way, or everyone else thinks so, or because "faith" is so highly praised and glorified. I'll describe in an entirely different post exactly why faith is a bullshit concept, but here's just way to look at it for now: Faith is a tool used by people who want to keep you convinced of something. The way it works is they portray faith as some kind of virtue. They offer praise to those who have faith, and treat it as if it is such a noble quality, to trick people into seeking it before they analyze what it means. It's quite a coy trick, really. Imagine if priests, pastors, reverence, imams, rabbis, etc. all were to start preaching evil to everyone. What if they started connoting the word and quality of evil with things like "saint", "admirable", "just", or "god-loving"? If this went on, it wouldn't take long for people actually trying to be evil (as defined by their local religious figure), because of how glorified it is by their religious figures. The problem with this idea is that many people would realize that their teachers were actually very bad people for condoning such practices, would question the worth of any religion which condoned them, and would likely convert to atheism, or some other religion. But that's the beauty of the "faith trap". Before people have a chance to doubt, while they're still hooked in, the concept of faith feeds into itself. It's "because I believe in it, I should believe in it". It's kind of hard to word this right, as it's half past 2 in the morning as I write this, but I hope that you all can understand what I'm saying right now.


But back to the topic of science, here's what bugs me about some theists. They will claim that they can scientifically prove their religion by challenging non-believers to disprove it. But that very statement is an oxymoron! In scientific inquiry, one of the most very basic principles is the burden of proof. The burden of proof (as in, the need to support one's argument in order for it to be rationally considered) always falls on the person making the claim. So therefore, it's up to theists to prove their religion if they want to do so rationally. If they fail to do so, and simply rely on non-theists to disprove it, and call that their proof, then they still haven't proven their point scientifically. They've proven it... BUT NOT SCIENTIFICALLY. That kind of evidence is just as good as "the bible said so", or "my rabbi said so", or worse: "I said so." Now before I close, I just want to inform you on what these previously stated examples look like. A theist may say something like "Look at this vast sea! Behold its amazing glory! Surely this is the work of god, who else could do something like this!?" This would lead one to ask what makes them think it was a god that made the ocean, or did whatever they bring up. Whenever a theist brings up something like this, what it all boils down to is that they believe what they do because someone said so. Sure, they'll sugar coat it to look like one of their more decent arguments, but in essence, that is what they mean.

So, in essence, here's what we have here. Science is fact. What we can prove based on what we know is what we can be sure of. Religion is crap. It bases none of its major claims on solid fact, and instead relies on a self-feeding cycle of "faith" and belief to "prove" itself. Furthermore, many theists will claim that they can scientifically prove their religion, but the fact is that they cannot prove it by science. The only "proof" they can provide is not scientifically or rationally acceptable, and can only successfully convince people using emotional appeal, lies, omission of truth, or simply by relying on a lack of in-depth knowledge and critical thinking skills. This is The Ellipsis, either preaching to the choir or hopefully making you a little less retarded. See ya!


Sincerely,
The Ellipsis