1. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81695 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 3:50 am

According to Pascal's wager the most important thing and the only thing god cares about is that you believe in him. You might be a criminal, a bigot, disrespectful and a liar but you will be saved because you believe in god. On the other hand, someone who is an overall ethical person but does not believe in god would be punished. If god is in fact this omnipotent, all-knowing being, don't you think that he would care about other things than just belief? Wouldn't he reward people for their honesty rather than their belief?
If I were god I could care less if people believe in me or not, I would instead judge them on their behavior and ethics.

2. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #81693 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 3:40 am

I think BAEOZ stated most of the counter argument. I would add the following:

In science the conclusion or the statement comes at the end, it is the end of the argument. In religion it is the beginning. Therefore, in science there is no a priori knowledge, all claims are based on previous testing and observations and these claims can be changed if additional observation comes in. Religion starts with the claim and never changes it, regardless of any new knowledge that might be acquired. Changing your mind is a virtue in science, in religion it is a flaw.

3. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #81688 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 3:27 am

It requires faith to believe in god and some will argue that faith is also required not to believe in god, therefore atheism is also a religion.

I would refute this in the following manner (I think it's from one of Dawkins' debates):
Faith (belief without evidence) is required to believe in something positive. NOT to believe in something for which there is no evidence does not require faith. Does it require faith NOT to believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, vampires, zombies or the flying spaghetti monster? Is the NON belief in alchemy a religion?

4. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #81664 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 2:32 am

From kurtdenke:

Does your religion make ANY assertion about the world? About how it got here, why it's here, how something in it works or has worked, how it interacts with supernatural entities or processes, what happens to people when they die? Any assertions about any of that at all? If yes, then there's an overlap.

I think this best sums up the counter argument here. And it should be pointed out that such assertions are SCIENTIFIC claims subject to scientific testing.

5. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81658 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 2:23 am

I think pointing out the studies often quoted by Michael Shermer showing no statistical difference between relgious and non-religious people when it comes to moral values is a good argument. Or stating that a country like Sweden where 20-30% of people say they believe in god is no less immoral than say USA where about 90% say they do believe in a god. It could even be argued that the Swedes are more moral than the rest of the western democracies due to the lowest crime rates, lowest levels of government corruption and one of the best social programs (education, healthcare, environmental protection etc...) in that part of the world.

6. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #81645 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 1:53 am

Whenever the proponents of ID try to point out weaknesses in the "evolution by natural selection" such as gaps in fossil record, formation of the eye, bacteria with one protein taken out doesn't work, etc... The answer should be: So what?! How does that provide any positive arguments supporting ID?! The theory of evolution is based on a multitude of evidence and observations in nature. However, it is not such a simple theory like the gravity theory for example, and it is not surprising if one could point out some points of controversy. That being said, is it not more reasonable to give credit to a theory (evolution) that is based at least on partial/many evidence rather than to a theory based on ZERO evidence (ID).

7. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80517 by dinamo02 on October 22, 2007 at 3:29 am

All that wikipedia says about D'Souza's education is that he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College. Can someon explain to me what kind of major this is?

Wikipedia also says that he dated Ann Coulter at some point. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!