Religion, what's the point?

[SwansonsTache]

It works both ways. I was an atheist. Now a Christian. Had to work at removing atheist indoctrination!

There is no atheist indoctrination. Atheism is simply belief in what is natural and what you can actually see and experience, it doesn't require you to take a huge leap of faith and believe in something that quite frankly if you rationalize it and put it into bullet points sounds like some refused Marvel movie script.

You really don't have to be indoctrinated to be asked to believe in, well, nothing - because that is what atheism is. Religion though asks you to suspend belief in natural forces, science and believe in invisible gods with endless powers - that takes some indoctrination.

 

[Mockney]

It literally means "without theism"

 

[AXVnee7]

There is no atheist indoctrination. Atheism is simply belief in what is natural and what you can actually see and experience, it doesn't require you to take a huge leap of faith and believe in something that quite frankly if you rationalize it and put it into bullet points sounds like some refused Marvel movie script.

You really don't have to be indoctrinated to be asked to believe in, well, nothing - because that is what atheism is. Religion though asks you to suspend belief in natural forces, science and believe in invisible gods with endless powers - that takes some indoctrination.

Does it?

 

[AXVnee7]

- Nobody knows.

Why ask questions that no mortal can answer? Try praying!

Was hoping there might be some indication in Holy texts but fair enough

 

[McUnited]

There is no atheist indoctrination. Atheism is simply belief in what is natural and what you can actually see and experience, it doesn't require you to take a huge leap of faith and believe in something that quite frankly if you rationalize it and put it into bullet points sounds like some refused Marvel movie script.

You really don't have to be indoctrinated to be asked to believe in, well, nothing - because that is what atheism is. Religion though asks you to suspend belief in natural forces, science and believe in invisible gods with endless powers - that takes some indoctrination.

Here we go again. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, which then leads onto its own worldview about morality, creation, consciousness etc. that is distinct from theism. It is not the absence of a belief. Dogs and cats have no belief about the matter but they aren't atheists.

Religion certainly doesn't ask you to suspend belief in science. When Newton published what is arguably the greatest work in the history of science, he dedicated it to God, writing that 'This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all'. Let's not perpetuate this nonsense that religion suspends the scientific enterprise.

 

[McUnited]

Was hoping there might be some indication in Holy texts but fair enough

There may well be some suggestions in the Bible... but if you're seriously searching for answers to those questions then I'm sure a biblical scholar might be able to help!

 

[SwansonsTache]

Does it?

Inception, creation, evolution, paleontology etc.

There are variables though, plenty of believers in science that are religious. The hard core ones that like to call themselves true believers seldom compromise though.

 

[Raoul]

Here we go again. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, which then leads onto its own worldview about morality, creation, consciousness etc. that is distinct from theism. It is not the absence of a belief. Dogs and cats have no belief about the matter but they aren't atheists.

Religion certainly doesn't ask you to suspend belief in science. When Newton published what is arguably the greatest work in the history of science, he dedicated it to God, writing that 'This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all'. Let's not perpetuate this nonsense that religion suspends the scientific enterprise.

You're going to have a hard time making the case that the absence of belief in something is a belief system, but go ahead and knock yourself out.

To paraphrase from a previous thread - I don't believe Alpha Centauri is a vast intergalactic Dildo factory. It's not a belief system, it's the absence of one.

Also, there's no inherent morality behind atheism other than standard human logic and reason. If something exists, then you accept that it exists. If something doesn't exist, then you don't fecking make up loads of BS to pretend it does.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Here we go again. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, which then leads onto its own worldview about morality, creation, consciousness etc. that is distinct from theism. It is not the absence of a belief. Dogs and cats have no belief about the matter but they aren't atheists.

Religion certainly doesn't ask you to suspend belief in science. When Newton published what is arguably the greatest work in the history of science, he dedicated it to God, writing that 'This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all'. Let's not perpetuate this nonsense that religion suspends the scientific enterprise.

Because atheism often correlates to particular worldviews or moralities does not equate to atheism inherently coming with any worldview or morality. It cannot be considered a belief system as it a simple position on one single matter that carries with it no other requirements.

For example, in order to be a Christan there are certain criteria on a spectrum you must fulfill. The only requirement to be an athiest is to not believe in a god or gods. It is surely not beyond debate that this is an absence of belief?

Citing Newton as an example of the compatability of science and religion is a little disingenuous surely? Leaving aside the historical context, it is undeniable that there is an inevtable cognitive clash between following a particular organised religions tenets and beliefs (the more literally you take the religion, the worse it'll be) and science's fundemental orobus like quest for empirically demonstrable truths. There are some who can reconcile this and religious scientists no doubt exist (albeit as a minority), but you must acknowledge surely that there is an issue of compatabilty with most religions?

 

[McUnited]

Because atheism often correlates to particular worldviews or moralities does not equate to atheism inherently coming with any worldview or morality. It cannot be considered a belief system as it a simple position on one single matter that carries with it no other requirements.

For example, in order to be a Christan there are certain criteria on a spectrum you must fulfill. The only requirement to be an athiest is to not believe in a god or gods. It is surely not beyond debate that this is an absence of belief?

Citing Newton as an example of the compatability of science and religion is a little disingenuous surely? Leaving aside the historical context, it is undeniable that there is an inevtable cognitive clash between following a particular organised religions tenets and beliefs (the more literally you take the religion, the worse it'll be) and science's fundemental orobus like quest for empirically demonstrable truths. There are some who can reconcile this and religious scientists no doubt exist (albeit as a minority), but you must acknowledge surely that there is an issue of compatabilty with most religions?

I don't think it's as simple as you claim because I think one's worldview ultimately stems from one's beliefs as to whether or not God exists. You say that atheism 'cannot be considered a belief system as it a simple position on one single matter that carries with it no other requirements', yet your opinion on whether or not the universe was created or not, or whether or not there is an absolute standard of morality, or whether or not Jesus was who he claimed to be, or whether or not the universe was intelligently designed all ultimately stems from your faith-system. You can't have one without the other.

No, I don't acknowledge that there's an issue of compatibility with Christianity. As Alvin Plantinga put it, I think there's superficial discord but deep accord between Christianity and science, and superficial accord but deep discord between naturalism and science.

 

[17Larsson]

That sounds like you're trying to say science is a faith system

 

[Raoul]

 

[McUnited]

You're going to have a hard time making the case that the absence of belief in something is a belief system, but go ahead and knock yourself out.

To paraphrase from a previous thread - I don't believe Alpha Centauri is a vast intergalactic Dildo factory. It's not a belief system, it's the absence of one.

Also, there's no inherent morality behind atheism other than standard human logic and reason. If something exists, then you accept that it exists. If something doesn't exist, then you don't fecking make up loads of BS to pretend it does.

Are you not overlooking the distinction between the absence of a belief in something, and a belief in the absence of something? The former is simply a comment on the mental state of a being. The latter is a concrete belief, namely 'I believe that x does not exist.' If it is God, then, yes, it entails various other beliefs I mentioned in a previous post.

As for morality, I'm glad to see you accept there is no 'inherent morality' on atheism, whatever that means. When you say 'If something doesn't exist, then you don't fecking make up loads of BS to pretend it does', I say Amen to that!

 

[McUnited]

That sounds like you're trying to say science is a faith system

Just because you think that's what I sound like I'm saying, doesn't mean that's what I'm saying. I think what you say sounds like you're a wooden shelf with a twelve paper clips on top. That doesn't make it true.

 

[Raoul]

Are you not overlooking the distinction between the absence of a belief in something, and a belief in the absence of something? The former is simply a comment on the mental state of a being. The latter is a concrete belief, namely 'I believe that x does not exist.' If it is God, then, yes, it entails various other beliefs I mentioned in a previous post.

As for morality, I'm glad to see you accept there is no 'inherent morality' on atheism, whatever that means. When you say 'If something doesn't exist, then you don't fecking make up loads of BS to pretend it does', I say Amen to that!

You can't believe in something in something if it's not a belief system, at least not in the same context of believing in religion. Atheism isn't a belief system - it's just a word to signify the absence of belief in religion.

 

[McUnited]

You can't believe in something in something if it's not a belief system, at least not in the same context of believing in religion. Atheism isn't a belief system - it's just a word to signify the absence of belief in religion.

It's not belief in religion, it's belief in God. Atheism is a word to signify the belief in the absence of God. As such, it entails a worldview that the world was not created or intelligently designed, that morality does not come from an all-powerful and infinitely just source, that Jesus was not the son of God, etc. etc. etc. It is a system of beliefs.

 

[ChaddyP]

For me If I can't say if God exist, because I can't prove that he doesnt. Just like a Christian /Muslim /Jew etc can't really prove that he does. Do I think it's highly highly unlikely for God to exist,yes but I can't truly one hundred percent say he doesn't as I have no proof that he doesn't.

To flat out say supernatural beings don't exist would take me upon the same path of a person that believes they do. Albeit opposite ends of the same line. I question everything, science theories and religious theories. Scientific theories tend to make more sense to me but at the end of the day they are theories and to say absolutely this is what happened would make me no different than a Christian believing in Noah the ark.

One thing that I feel can be quantified is math. It's one of the things in the universe that is truly universal. If all knowledge was to be erased stories of Jesus and Muhammed and moses and Silasi etc would never come back and would be replaced with some other crazy story. Bur 1 + 1 will still be 2. For me that's the constant and that's what I will always be looking at to explain things and broaden my understanding of life. Couldn't care less if God is real or not, it always seemed like a cop out to truly understand the ways of the world.

 

[McUnited]

For me If I can't say if God exist, because I can't prove that he doesnt. Just like a Christian /Muslim /Jew etc can't really prove that he does. Do I think it's highly highly unlikely for God to exist,yes but I can't truly one hundred percent say he doesn't as I have no proof that he doesn't.

To flat out say supernatural beings don't exist would take me upon the same path of a person that believes they do. Albeit opposite ends of the same line. I question everything, science theories and religious theories. Scientific theories tend to make more sense to me but at the end of the day they are theories and to say absolutely this is what happened would make me no different than a Christian believing in Noah the ark.

One thing that I feel can be quantified is math. It's one of the things in the universe that is truly universal. If all knowledge was to be erased stories of Jesus and Muhammed and moses and Silasi etc would never come back and would be replaced with some other crazy story. Bur 1 + 1 will still be 2. For me that's the constant and that's what I will always be looking at to explain things and broaden my understanding of life. Couldn't care less if God is real or not, it always seemed like a cop out to truly understand the ways of the world.

I agree, there's no definitive proof either way. (Although that in itself, I think, is an argument for His existence!)

The existence of the language of maths and the fact that it appears to be universal is quite remarkable. For some people, perhaps this points towards a law-maker. Your final comment out it being a cop-out surely doesn't apply to people like Isaac Newton, who's insatiable appetite for understanding the ways of the world were based upon his belief that God made the world in such a way as to be understandable and patterned.

 

[ChaddyP]

I agree, there's no definitive proof either way. (Although that in itself, I think, is an argument for His existence!)

Depends on how you look at it. It could also be an argument for his/her non existence

Your final comment out it being a cop-out surely doesn't apply to people like Isaac Newton, who's insatiable appetite for understanding the ways of the world were based upon his belief that God made the world in such a way as to be understandable and patterned.

Well he is an anomoly that seeked answers but still questioned the beliefs of the Church and what they had as fact all while still believing that this was done by God. More power to him for doing so but I cant help but wonder what he could have accomplished if he didnt assume there had to be a higher being. My point is even if I think its highly unlikely it shouldnt be ruled out, and just saying of God is powerful and magical he made the sun and the stars by just wanting it there is a cop out. I would rather try to disprove this theory which would come closer to the truth. It works the other way. Simply saying oh everything was once in a small atom and then exploded and then universe was created without trying to question and prove it wrong is equallt a cop out in my eyes.

 

[Raoul]

It's not belief in religion, it's belief in God. Atheism is a word to signify the belief in the absence of God. As such, it entails a worldview that the world was not created or intelligently designed, that morality does not come from an all-powerful and infinitely just source, that Jesus was not the son of God, etc. etc. etc. It is a system of beliefs.

I suppose you could say that if you want it to mean that. For me and for all other atheists I've known, it has never meant a belief in anything, where belief is an actual belief in something. To claim someone believes in nothing is just a pedantic device that has no rational meaning other than to be used when religious people debate atheists in the hope of entangling them into some sort of false duality that you 'either believe in god or you believe in atheism'. Its not real.

 

[AXVnee7]

There's definitely people who believe there is no God whatsoever. They would be convinced by evidence, but assert that there is 100% no God.

There's others who don't believe in a particular God, based on a lack of evidence. They think that God is a plausible concept, but the ones proposed to them so far don't satisfy them.

I think both get drawn under the term 'athiest', which can be a bit confusing.

 

[ChaddyP]

There's definitely people who believe there is no God whatsoever. They would be convinced by evidence, but assert that there is 100% no God.

There's others who don't believe in a particular God, based on a lack of evidence. They think that God is a plausible concept, but the ones proposed to them so far don't satisfy them.

I think both get drawn under the term 'athiest', which can be a bit confusing.

Thats why there is a person called Agnostic. I dont really cosider myself Athiest.

 

[AXVnee7]

Thats why there is a person called Agnostic. I dont really cosider myself Athiest.

But then agnostic is someone who isn't sure if they believe in God, or if there is a God? That doesn't go with the other two. An atheist firmly asserts at the least that there cannot be a God based on what we know.

 

[ChaddyP]

But then agnostic is someone who isn't sure if they believe in God, or if there is a God? That doesn't go with the other two. An atheist firmly asserts at the least that there cannot be a God based on what we know.

There's others who don't believe in a particular God, based on a lack of evidence. They think that God is a plausible concept, but the ones proposed to them so far don't satisfy them.

this sounds like an agnostic person to me. Maybe im wrong, always thought that this was basically the definition of an Agnostic person

 

[AXVnee7]

this sounds like an agnostic person to me. Maybe im wrong, always thought that this was basically the definition of an Agnostic person

Hmm perhaps it's me! Agnostic to me is someone who isn't sure, but an atheist is one who holds the belief there isn't a god.

I can see how the line can be blurred though, and the line you quoted is probably somewhere in between.

 

[GaryLifo]

For me my atheism means I reject theism as an explanation for the origin of the universe and everything within it.

It works very well for me and I'm leading a very happy and fulfilled life and I've no interest in trying to argue with theists, nor attempting to convince them against their beliefs. I prefer that they do the same.

 

[berbatrick]

Remember when we have people in this thread (mostly the Muslims) trying to persuade us that human being made from clay is scientifically justified?

We are all diatoms! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom

 

[ChaddyP]

This has probably been discussed before but what do the aithiest (aithiest, agnostic and everything in between) do about their kids.

I have a 9 month old. I Live in a country with the most churches per square mile and most of the population believe in Christianity and frown upon persons that don't believe in the existence of any God really like myself. What do you teach your child. Especially when your family are devout Christians and his mom believes in God. Do you allow them to believe in what ever society will make them believe, or do you try your best to make them see things your way.

 

[2cents]

This has probably been discussed before but what do the aithiest (aithiest, agnostic and everything in between) do about their kids.

I have a 9 month old. I Live in a country with the most churches per square mile and most of the population believe in Christianity and frown upon persons that don't believe in the existence of any God really like myself. What do you teach your child. Especially when your family are devout Christians and his mom believes in God. Do you allow them to believe in what ever society will make them believe, or do you try your best to make them see things your way.

Do your best to ensure that your child grows up under the type of conditions where eventually he/she will be able to make up their own mind about these things.

 

[berbatrick]

Marx was so right: the full quote

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.
...
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

 

[17Larsson]

This has probably been discussed before but what do the aithiest (aithiest, agnostic and everything in between) do about their kids.

I have a 9 month old. I Live in a country with the most churches per square mile and most of the population believe in Christianity and frown upon persons that don't believe in the existence of any God really like myself. What do you teach your child. Especially when your family are devout Christians and his mom believes in God. Do you allow them to believe in what ever society will make them believe, or do you try your best to make them see things your way.

Just encourage them to question everything they are told

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I don't think it's as simple as you claim because I think one's worldview ultimately stems from one's beliefs as to whether or not God exists. You say that atheism 'cannot be considered a belief system as it a simple position on one single matter that carries with it no other requirements', yet your opinion on whether or not the universe was created or not, or whether or not there is an absolute standard of morality, or whether or not Jesus was who he claimed to be, or whether or not the universe was intelligently designed all ultimately stems from your faith-system. You can't have one without the other.

No, I don't acknowledge that there's an issue of compatibility with Christianity. As Alvin Plantinga put it, I think there's superficial discord but deep accord between Christianity and science, and superficial accord but deep discord between naturalism and science.

That's a very Christian position and one need not be athiest to disagree with "Jesus being who he claimed to be". Indeed, I feel that it is this very position which fuels your claims that athiesm is a belief system. Athiesm does not come with a creation myth, give you a position on moral relativity nor does it ally itself with any discipline, including science. It does colour your view of claims made in the bible regarding Jesus and intelligent design by a god are certianly out but not holding to the tenets of a belief system is not a belief system itself.

I think the statement you make in your second paragraph is clearly contradicted by your first. I claim that there is an inherent incompatabilty between most organised religions and science and that this is worse the more you literally believe doctrine or gospel. A case in point would be intelligent design. Certain levels of biblical interpretation may lead a person to believe in such a thing. No scientist could - intelligent design is directly incompatable with the scientific principles of truth as it is by definition and an unproveable faith position.

Alvin Platinga's quote is in of itself superficial: I suppose the claim is that both science and religion search for truth - but this is only superficially so. There is one key element of religion that must be true and nothing in science gets such protection.

I'm guessing that you're an American Christan so I hold little hope this won't go pear shaped, but I would suggest this: pick a religion and athiesm. Write down the elements you must believe in, even if it's on a very large continuum to consider yourself of the chosen religion or atheism. Can you get athiesm past one sentence? Adding in all the different myths within the chosen religion doesn't count!

 

[ChaddyP]

Do your best to ensure that your child grows up under the type of conditions where eventually he/she will be able to make up their own mind about these things.

Just encourage them to question everything they are told

Cheers

 

[Ady87]

Incredible that we have reached a point in time where people have been going on about a man made character for so long that people actually have to consider his existence because they can't prove he doesn't exist.

I think logic, education and technology stops the take off and subsequent buy in of any new, fictional beings, but I know that's not stopping some cults from trying.

I can't properly articulate my thoughts on religion and often get frustrated when arguments are whittled down to 'try praying' and 'faith', so I'm going to dip from this thread with no real substance added.

 

[Synco]

Marx was so right: the full quote

To me that quote is a prime example for Marx not only being one of the great thinkers mankind has produced, but also one of the great humanist writers.* It pretty much answers the question in the thread title, or at least captures crucial aspects of that answer. And it offers so much more insight and empathy than simply discarding religion as an absurd illusion (the predominant atheist stance I encounter in discussions).

Perhaps one sentence you left out is still noteworthy. It precedes and introduces the two famous sentences after the suspension marks in your quote. The whole sequence reads:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The part on 'expression and protest' is really as true as it can get. Both in its critical soberness and its empathic understanding of religion's role as a container for the (partly unconscious) longing for true relief.


(*Although something of its literary greatness - and therefore contentual poignancy - gets lost in translation to me, but that's probably unavoidable.)

 

[McUnited]

To me that quote is a prime example for Marx not only being one of the great thinkers mankind has produced, but also one of the great humanist writers.* It pretty much answers the question in the thread title, or at least captures crucial aspects of that answer. And it offers so much more insight and empathy than simply discarding religion as an absurd illusion (the predominant atheist stance I encounter in discussions).

Perhaps one sentence you left out is still noteworthy. It precedes and introduces the two famous sentences after the suspension marks in your quote. The whole sequence reads:

The part on 'expression and protest' is really as true as it can get. Both in its critical soberness and its empathic understanding of religion's role as a container for the (partly unconscious) longing for true relief.


(*Although something of its literary greatness - and therefore contentual poignancy - gets lost in translation to me, but that's probably unavoidable.)

Just because Marx said something doesn't make it right. I don't see much of a following for Marxism these days (at least, not where I live).

 

[McUnited]

That's a very Christian position and one need not be athiest to disagree with "Jesus being who he claimed to be". Indeed, I feel that it is this very position which fuels your claims that athiesm is a belief system. Athiesm does not come with a creation myth, give you a position on moral relativity nor does it ally itself with any discipline, including science. It does colour your view of claims made in the bible regarding Jesus and intelligent design by a god are certianly out but not holding to the tenets of a belief system is not a belief system itself.

I think the statement you make in your second paragraph is clearly contradicted by your first. I claim that there is an inherent incompatabilty between most organised religions and science and that this is worse the more you literally believe doctrine or gospel. A case in point would be intelligent design. Certain levels of biblical interpretation may lead a person to believe in such a thing. No scientist could - intelligent design is directly incompatable with the scientific principles of truth as it is by definition and an unproveable faith position.

Alvin Platinga's quote is in of itself superficial: I suppose the claim is that both science and religion search for truth - but this is only superficially so. There is one key element of religion that must be true and nothing in science gets such protection.

I'm guessing that you're an American Christan so I hold little hope this won't go pear shaped, but I would suggest this: pick a religion and athiesm. Write down the elements you must believe in, even if it's on a very large continuum to consider yourself of the chosen religion or atheism. Can you get athiesm past one sentence? Adding in all the different myths within the chosen religion doesn't count!

I never said one needs to be an atheist in order to do so. I said that whether or not you believe Jesus was who he claimed to be ultimately stems from your faith-system. It is part of an atheist's worldview to say that Jesus was not who he claimed to be.

 

[McUnited]

Incredible that we have reached a point in time where people have been going on about a man made character for so long that people actually have to consider his existence because they can't prove he doesn't exist.

I think logic, education and technology stops the take off and subsequent buy in of any new, fictional beings, but I know that's not stopping some cults from trying.

I can't properly articulate my thoughts on religion and often get frustrated when arguments are whittled down to 'try praying' and 'faith', so I'm going to dip from this thread with no real substance added.

1) No-one believes in a man-made character.

2) As far as I'm aware people don't consider His existence simply because they can't prove He doesn't exist.

 

[McUnited]

Cheers

I'd agree with @17Larsson. If you're worried about indoctrination of any sort, provide an environment which gives them the best opportunity to reason and think for themselves. You can hope that they reach the same worldview that you've adopted, but be prepared for them to reach conclusions that differ from your own.

 

[Ady87]

1) No-one believes in a man-made character.

2) As far as I'm aware people don't consider His existence simply because they can't prove He doesn't exist.

For point 2:

For me If I can't say if God exist, because I can't prove that he doesnt. Just like a Christian /Muslim /Jew etc can't really prove that he does. Do I think it's highly highly unlikely for God to exist,yes but I can't truly one hundred percent say he doesn't as I have no proof that he doesn't.

To flat out say supernatural beings don't exist would take me upon the same path of a person that believes they do. Albeit opposite ends of the same line. I question everything, science theories and religious theories. Scientific theories tend to make more sense to me but at the end of the day they are theories and to say absolutely this is what happened would make me no different than a Christian believing in Noah the ark.

One thing that I feel can be quantified is math. It's one of the things in the universe that is truly universal. If all knowledge was to be erased stories of Jesus and Muhammed and moses and Silasi etc would never come back and would be replaced with some other crazy story. Bur 1 + 1 will still be 2. For me that's the constant and that's what I will always be looking at to explain things and broaden my understanding of life. Couldn't care less if God is real or not, it always seemed like a cop out to truly understand the ways of the world.

@McUnited

I interpreted the bolded part as Chaddy, in this instance, at least considering a God's existence because he can't confirm a God doesn't exist.

I'm just saying I don't like that we are at a point in time where this character has been discussed for so long that logical, rational thinkers have to make these kinds of statements.

Just look at the period in time in which this all came about. Relatively speaking, these people knew feck all about anything. It baffles me.