I wouldn't refuse to take care of a patient due to religious differences. But talking to their imaginary friend isn't taking care of them. I don't have time for fairy tales. Just b/c something makes them feel better doesn't mean a Dr. should do it. If fellatio made them feel better, I wouldn't do that either.
D
deleted87051
I'm not militant at all. In fact I have attended religious services out of respect for friends, family, and loved ones. I was educated in religious schools, work in a religious institution and volunteer on medical missions with a religious organization.
I am happy to take care of Christians, Wiccans, whatever, especially if they have good commercial insurance. But participating in religious rituals is not part of my professional obligation. I am hoping to find a way to politely decline without being militant or causing offense. Please help me out here.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
No, I'd respectfully decline on the grounds that I belong to a different tradition. 'Respectfully' includes that I wouldn't then go on SDN to mock your beliefs.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
FYI, I wasn't referring to you with my comment about people being militant. I was referring to the posters who felt a need to poke fun at the idea of faith in anything at all, and while I have a feeling that the most outrageous one was just trying to get attention, I don't think they all were. I admit that I'm a little tired of the double standard I see around here [SDN], where people from any sort of religious background are seemingly expected to remain silent, but atheists are free to spout all kinds of unfiltered vitriol about the idea of belief. Well, personally I believe that there is such a thing as inherent right and wrong, and that those derive directly from God's Law. And like every other person, I've sinned. I've broken that Law. The question is only one of whether I'll accept the sacrifice that Another - Jesus - has already offered on my behalf.
Sure, I went there. I didn't speak up first, or even second or third. But by the time we're on the second page of a discussion where people are mostly deriding belief, I'll stand up to defend what I believe in.
But as mentioned above, if a patient asked me to participate in (for example) Hindu or Islamic prayers, I'd simply say that I'm from a different tradition, but I'm happy to give them time to pray before the surgery.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 480
I would join in, hold hands, and do whatever passive actions were required to participate. Let's not be sensational about the topic. Let's be realistic.
You don't have to lead a chant or prayer. You don't have to get baptized or undergo a ritual. You merely have to show respect and render a small action to comfort the patient. Hell, if it were Friday and I was in a good mood I may throw out some Allahu Akhbars.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 480
Question for the atheists-
Have yall ever been in a wedding at a church? Did yall refuse to go in? Have to be excused up front when they prayed?
Have yall ever been in a wedding at a church? Did yall refuse to go in? Have to be excused up front when they prayed?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
When it comes to my presence during and passive acceptance of others' religious beliefs and rituals, there are two very different kinds of interactions, and it's always pretty easy to draw a line between them.
On one side, there are those who are doing it for their benefit, such patients who are worried about the surgery they're about to have, and everyone who builds a church or other place of worship and attends services.
On the other side are those who are paternalistically doing it for my benefit. The people who want the 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse, or the ones who want to lead my kids in prayer before an event at a public school, or the politicians who fight gay marriage or want mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds prior to elective abortions.
I'm not "militant" at all about the former. I'm downright friendly and accommodating, actually. The latter, not so much.
On one side, there are those who are doing it for their benefit, such patients who are worried about the surgery they're about to have, and everyone who builds a church or other place of worship and attends services.
On the other side are those who are paternalistically doing it for my benefit. The people who want the 10 Commandments posted in a courthouse, or the ones who want to lead my kids in prayer before an event at a public school, or the politicians who fight gay marriage or want mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds prior to elective abortions.
I'm not "militant" at all about the former. I'm downright friendly and accommodating, actually. The latter, not so much.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
I got married in the church in my wife's home town. She believes, I don't. I occasionally go, because she sometimes sings in the choir and I like to hear her. I'm not there for the sermon.
You've got to understand ... most atheists don't go to church NOT because they hate religion ... they don't go to church because they're indifferent to it.
IOW, the same reason you wouldn't attend a WrestleMania-ballet-gardening-windsurf expo quadruple event: non-interest, not hate or contempt.
D
deleted50478
I go to weddings and funerals iin churches. I also sat quietly when the surgeon led a group prayer before every case when I went on a medical mission. I accompanied a religious group on the mission so, while I think no one was listening, I was fine with the prayer because of the situation I voluntarily placed myself in.
My day to day work on the other hand should not include religion.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 480
I think that's fine, but there is precedent for you sucking it up and just acquiescing to being present during prayer. Now, whether we split hairs as it being on a mission trip, work, or anywhere in between is just a matter of your ego, not your conviction. JMO.
Last edited:
D
deleted50478
Well I could hardly leave the OR with an asleep patient!
I disagree. It is a conviction. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. I also don't go to weddings at churches only to turn around and walk out when the praying starts.
My hospital is not a mission trip and it is not a church. Public prayer has no place. Asking about religion is wrong and likely to promote discrimination against me at the hands of xtian hypocrites.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 480
A private patient room/bedside at a hospital is hardly public.
You're proud. I apologize. Just seems arrogant.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 190
- Reaction score
- 21
I find this topic fascinating and baffling.
I was raised hardcore baptist in Texas and was basically forced to go to baptist college. I never really bought into the whole thing since the bible read similar to other written works that required magical thinking to believe that they were or could be real (Greek mythology). As a teen I also noticed that it seems to matter what part of the world you happen to be born in that usually dictates your religious affiliation. A child born outside of a majority Christian nation to non-Christian parents at no fault of his or her own is at the mercy of this circumstance and was going to hell according to those in my church including my own parents unless they made the extremely unlikely choice of conversion when in reality rarely happens. It also always troubled me that civilizations that had not come into contact with western/Judeo-Christian society and thus were unaware of THE WAY/TRUTH/LIFE were destined to hellfire. They didn't even have the chance to choose Islam or Buddhism or Shintoism etc over Jesus: they just thought the jaguar was God and apparently have to eternally suffer for that.
So when I was in med school I was shocked at how many people still held onto these beliefs which to me seemed extremely unscientific and at odds at what to me is the basis for a career in medicine. Does that mean you can't be a good scientist or physician if you believe in God? Absolutely not. I just find it strange that someone "believes" in the scientific method and employs it in not only their job but in their everyday lives but then the subject of religion is completely off limits to logical and deductive thought.
I truly do not mean to insult anyone here. Like I said I find this topic interesting because coming from a strict and rigid religious background I'm surprised that more physicians haven't come to similar conclusions.
I was raised hardcore baptist in Texas and was basically forced to go to baptist college. I never really bought into the whole thing since the bible read similar to other written works that required magical thinking to believe that they were or could be real (Greek mythology). As a teen I also noticed that it seems to matter what part of the world you happen to be born in that usually dictates your religious affiliation. A child born outside of a majority Christian nation to non-Christian parents at no fault of his or her own is at the mercy of this circumstance and was going to hell according to those in my church including my own parents unless they made the extremely unlikely choice of conversion when in reality rarely happens. It also always troubled me that civilizations that had not come into contact with western/Judeo-Christian society and thus were unaware of THE WAY/TRUTH/LIFE were destined to hellfire. They didn't even have the chance to choose Islam or Buddhism or Shintoism etc over Jesus: they just thought the jaguar was God and apparently have to eternally suffer for that.
So when I was in med school I was shocked at how many people still held onto these beliefs which to me seemed extremely unscientific and at odds at what to me is the basis for a career in medicine. Does that mean you can't be a good scientist or physician if you believe in God? Absolutely not. I just find it strange that someone "believes" in the scientific method and employs it in not only their job but in their everyday lives but then the subject of religion is completely off limits to logical and deductive thought.
I truly do not mean to insult anyone here. Like I said I find this topic interesting because coming from a strict and rigid religious background I'm surprised that more physicians haven't come to similar conclusions.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
I was going to respond via PM, but since the question was raised publicly, I figure it deserves a public answer.
Terms like "magical thinking" tend to get thrown around, and I'd like to say one thing at the outset. Simply discussing something in terms that lay out your disdain for something is not the same as disproving it. Mocking something is not the same as disproving it. Describing in detail how something differs from modern American liberalism is not the same as disproving it. Stating that you can't prove something scientifically is not at all the same as proving its absence. And lastly, describing the multitude of ways in which various Christians "fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 8:28) does not disprove His glory, much less His existence.
Sure, in one sense faith is unscientific: by definition, it can't be scientifically proven. Neither can love, art, beauty - some of my favorite things about being alive! Should I refuse to allow art in my life on the grounds that it is unscientific? One of the things I love about medicine, and one of the things about it that most frustrates those who would reduce it to a Taylor-style series of algorithms, is that it is not purely scientific. It would be better understood as a bridge between art and science.
Another straw-man attack, I'm afraid, on the mentality of believers. Some of the most detailed analytical thought I've seen has come from Christians wrestling with the outworkings of God's Word, whereas those who would disprove His Word tend to resort to the verbal equivalent of eye-rolling.
For starters, I would refer readers to C.S. Lewis' excellent "The Problem of Pain." Atheists tend to say, in effect, "You believe in a loving God, but there's pain in the world. Gotcha! I've totally disproven a loving God!" Instead of merely saying, "No, you're wrong," Lewis wrote an entire book in response to this idea, arguing very persuasively that the Christian conception is not only defensible but the only logical outcome of free will. Yet Christians are the ones who lack logical or deductive thought?
Terms like "magical thinking" tend to get thrown around, and I'd like to say one thing at the outset. Simply discussing something in terms that lay out your disdain for something is not the same as disproving it. Mocking something is not the same as disproving it. Describing in detail how something differs from modern American liberalism is not the same as disproving it. Stating that you can't prove something scientifically is not at all the same as proving its absence. And lastly, describing the multitude of ways in which various Christians "fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 8:28) does not disprove His glory, much less His existence.
Sure, in one sense faith is unscientific: by definition, it can't be scientifically proven. Neither can love, art, beauty - some of my favorite things about being alive! Should I refuse to allow art in my life on the grounds that it is unscientific? One of the things I love about medicine, and one of the things about it that most frustrates those who would reduce it to a Taylor-style series of algorithms, is that it is not purely scientific. It would be better understood as a bridge between art and science.
Another straw-man attack, I'm afraid, on the mentality of believers. Some of the most detailed analytical thought I've seen has come from Christians wrestling with the outworkings of God's Word, whereas those who would disprove His Word tend to resort to the verbal equivalent of eye-rolling.
For starters, I would refer readers to C.S. Lewis' excellent "The Problem of Pain." Atheists tend to say, in effect, "You believe in a loving God, but there's pain in the world. Gotcha! I've totally disproven a loving God!" Instead of merely saying, "No, you're wrong," Lewis wrote an entire book in response to this idea, arguing very persuasively that the Christian conception is not only defensible but the only logical outcome of free will. Yet Christians are the ones who lack logical or deductive thought?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
It's interesting that you express disappointment with a strawman, only to introduce one of your own.
I have never made that argument, nor has any atheist I've ever spoken to. In general, we're not concerned with silly logical fallacies like attempting to prove negatives. We observe a world without evidence for the existence of any magic, supernatural creatures, or gods ... a world that has no need for supernatural or divine intervention to function ... and that's it.
D
deleted50478
😴
It's disproven by internal contradictions and lack of a remotely plausible rationale for anything that it claims to explain.
Anyway, if you don't care about evidence or reason then there's nothing to argue about.
and now for some memes...
Last edited by a moderator:
D
deleted50478
D
deleted50478
D
deleted50478
D
deleted50478
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 99
What do you know of reason and evidence?
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 57
I'm happy to oblige them... if they're rastafarians
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,204
- Reaction score
- 80
So long as they've consented before endulging in the sacrament.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
And now that the above sarcastic memes have been posted, I do feel compelled to address them, if only because they distract from serious discussion and give believers easy targets to poke holes in. To be clear: they are humor, not a serious attempt at logic or disproval of any gods.
A rational argument for atheism isn't a moral one at all; it's an argument based on a simple lack of evidence, nothing more. Supernatural beings that don't exist aren't cruel or evil, they just don't exist.
A person who says, with a straight face, that he doesn't believe in god because he's angry at whatever cruel god he imagines, is a child or a troll. Your average adult atheist doesn't shake his fists at a god he doesn't believe in and tell the god he doesn't believe in that he's unworthy of worship because he allows evil to exist in the world. That's stupid. There's more logical inconsistency in that bit of self-indulgent insecure theater than in the whole of the Bible, Koran, every other ancient text, every ancient oral tradition, and every cheaply printed page of L Ron Hubbard pulp fiction put together.
A rational argument for atheism isn't a moral one at all; it's an argument based on a simple lack of evidence, nothing more. Supernatural beings that don't exist aren't cruel or evil, they just don't exist.
A person who says, with a straight face, that he doesn't believe in god because he's angry at whatever cruel god he imagines, is a child or a troll. Your average adult atheist doesn't shake his fists at a god he doesn't believe in and tell the god he doesn't believe in that he's unworthy of worship because he allows evil to exist in the world. That's stupid. There's more logical inconsistency in that bit of self-indulgent insecure theater than in the whole of the Bible, Koran, every other ancient text, every ancient oral tradition, and every cheaply printed page of L Ron Hubbard pulp fiction put together.
D
deleted50478
That's true but also not completely true. Yes, the lack of evidence of god is the only statement that needs to be made in atheism vs religion.
The meme's are created (not by me) to be humorous but also point out that even though their god is a character in a story and not an entity observed in the real world, the story isn't even a good consistent one. It's both made up out of thin air (or frequently out of stories from earlier religions) and ridiculous even as a story. Many people realize that the bible isn't literally true but still believe that there's a valuable message from a god in there. The absurdity, evil, and contradictions in the bible point out that, no, there isn't a valuable message, at least not a consistent one.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 99
My apologies: strictly speaking, I don't belong in this thread, "A Question for Atheists." I do believe there is evidence of the historical Christ Jesus, our King who was/is literally resurrected from the dead. I have no difficulty with "scientific plausibility" as I look out towards the center of our galaxy, imagining my cosmic microbial size while considering the state of our scientific understanding in its historical context.
D
deleted50478
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
It looks like nolagas advanced that exact argument shortly after you posted.
Regarding logic, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Personally, I don't think there's an absence of evidence; I think creation fairly shouts that it had a Creator. But even if you see no evidence there, it's not sound logic to conclude that such an absence disproves any sort of deity.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
Surely you're kidding. You think that Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger were all lying to support a cause to which they didn't even belong?
D
deleted50478
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
You're continuing to quote sources from way out on the fringe. These are well-known classical authors whose works have been thoroughly studied; if they were fakes, you wouldn't have to resort to such oddball sites as you've now twice referenced.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
Again though, his argument is not one for atheism, it's an argument that Christians worship an evil and malicious god. He's condemning YOUR character, not making the claim that there is or isn't a god that's good or evil. The arguments put forth by those captions, whether or not they have any merit at all, are wholly unrelated to the one for or against the existence of a god.
Consider the caption on the last one:
This is a criticism of the people who choose to believe a story about a being that committed mass murder, and yet still feel that being deserves praise and worship, rather than fear and disgust.
We're in agreement. But who's trying to prove god doesn't exist?
Who's trying to prove god doesn't exist?
You make a compelling argument against a position I and most atheists don't actually hold. We don't believe in your god simply because there's no good reason to. I am as interested in disproving your faith as I am in disproving the existence of garden fairies that make my tomatoes grow big. It's enough to see that the universe is big and beautiful and wondrous; I don't need to imagine there's magic in it too.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,896
- Reaction score
- 3,303
Wait. I need to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the bible does not contain a valuable message?
D
deleted50478
.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,896
- Reaction score
- 3,303
Was this in response to my question?
D
deleted50478
Oh really? There are original copies of their works?
That confirm not only that there were christians?
but that there was a single jesus?
and that the stories about him were true?
No, maybe, no, and no.
Actually read this, eh? http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/1stC_Hist.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
D
deleted50478
No. I thought you were kidding.
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 18
I had this exchange with a patient not too long ago.
Patient "When I had my C section, that anesthesiologist told me he was an atheist. I kicked him out of my room and let everyone know that if you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior you will never lay a hand on me."
Me "You do know your surgeon is Jewish?"
Patient "Oh, well that's fine..."
There's nothing wrong with well wishes and giving a nervous patient the gift of your time. Even if you don't believe, you can still let them know that you are hoping for a great outcome and that you will try your best.
Imagine what a jury would say if something goes wrong, and the patient says "... and Dr. So-So refused to pray with me as well!"
Patient "When I had my C section, that anesthesiologist told me he was an atheist. I kicked him out of my room and let everyone know that if you have not accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior you will never lay a hand on me."
Me "You do know your surgeon is Jewish?"
Patient "Oh, well that's fine..."
There's nothing wrong with well wishes and giving a nervous patient the gift of your time. Even if you don't believe, you can still let them know that you are hoping for a great outcome and that you will try your best.
Imagine what a jury would say if something goes wrong, and the patient says "... and Dr. So-So refused to pray with me as well!"
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
Which gets back to what I was saying in the beginning. God exists. He is what He is, which is incidentally neither evil nor malicious. Attempting to argue against His character (or, even more irrelevant, my own) hardly disproves His existence.
As for who's trying to disprove God, you and nolagas have been working on that project for awhile, and not making any headway. Nolagas has gone as far as to attempt to disprove the existence of Jesus on earth, albeit through the interesting method of posting links to oddball websites with the unstated argument of "someone on the internet wrote it, so it must be fact." Res ipsa loquitur on that one - the matter speaks for itself. But at any rate, arguing that nobody here is trying to disprove God's existence is a bit silly.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 336
- Reaction score
- 100
You do realize that while mocking the idea of the Bible - literally the best-attested, most thoroughly researched book in the history of man - you are arguing that I should instead take individual, poorly researched opinion websites as absolute fact?
I'm astonished to need to say it, but: simply because someone on the Internet writes something does not make it true. Northstar also has a site telling us how anesthesia is broken, and they're going to fix it, and yadda yadda yadda. This does not mean that Northstar is good or praiseworthy, no matter what their site may say.
D
deleted50478
I know! A lot of research went into this! But don't take the internet's word for it. You can even check it against your own bible at home.
http://bibviz.com
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
In the end, this is all you really need to say because it's all you have: argument by assertion.
You're right, I shouldn't have stated no one is trying to disprove the existence of god. You never know who's going to post something silly on the internet. 🙂 On a forum full of smart people, I didn't really expect anyone to try.
What I mean is that no logical atheist tries to do so, because there's no point.
Firstly, requiring that believers produce evidence of god is useless because believers take pride in asserting that faith itself demands belief without evidence. You don't value evidence the way we do ... it's as simple as that. The weaker among you point to a nebulous historic record and pretend it is evidence of supernatural powers; the stronger among you just acknowledge that you don't need evidence for your faith. That's OK, if that works for you, great.
And secondly, mature people who happen to be atheists generally don't feel the need to "convert" other people to atheism. There's no club, no gathering, no secret decoder ring, no prizes. Exceptions exist, but evangelism is primarily the domain of theists. Atheists don't organize trips to the 3rd world to build churches, or go door-to-door looking for new members. Typically, we say nothing at all, until someone attempts to to impose their religiously-derived morals upon us via force of law ... or occasionally, when we're asked outright for our opinion on something (such as this very thread).
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
Someone part of my original reply got lost in my phones's innards ...
This, I totally agree with. Moral arguments are irrelevant to the existence question. They may have some use in poking holes in specific bits of a religion's doctrine, or in arguing that a religion's teaching are unworthy of decent people (looking at you, ISIS).
But of course "god doesn't exist because god is evil" is an absurd , easily dismissed argument.
This, I totally agree with. Moral arguments are irrelevant to the existence question. They may have some use in poking holes in specific bits of a religion's doctrine, or in arguing that a religion's teaching are unworthy of decent people (looking at you, ISIS).
But of course "god doesn't exist because god is evil" is an absurd , easily dismissed argument.
D
deleted50478
I also wasn't arguing that god doesn't exist. There is no evidence that he does but disproving it is impossible. Why argue?
I WAS arguing that a) jesus might not have even existed, or was made up of multiple people, and that the 'historical evidence' has been passed down exclusively through christian sources that contain definite forgeries that put the whole work in doubt, and b) the bible is so full of contradictions that you can't claim to know what, if anything, is true in there.
A vague belief in god is not evidence based. A belief in christianity goes beyond that. It is contrary to evidence and common sense.
I WAS arguing that a) jesus might not have even existed, or was made up of multiple people, and that the 'historical evidence' has been passed down exclusively through christian sources that contain definite forgeries that put the whole work in doubt, and b) the bible is so full of contradictions that you can't claim to know what, if anything, is true in there.
A vague belief in god is not evidence based. A belief in christianity goes beyond that. It is contrary to evidence and common sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 99
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 17,092
- Reaction score
- 26,783
Sure. Supernatural. Super natural. The definition is simple and clear ... some phenomenon that is alleged to occur outside the laws of the natural world as we understand them.
If something is observed that doesn't fit those laws, then the correct answer is to reassess either the laws or the observation, or both. Not to declare that some god did it.
The answer "I don't know how/why some observed phenomenon happened" is superior to "god did it" ...
Nothing at all humble, or constructive, about that statement. Just bitter and sarcastic.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 99
The answer "I don't know how/why some observed phenomenon happened" is superior to "god did it"
Fair enough, I don't know how Christ was resurrected from the dead.
Fair enough, I don't know how Christ was resurrected from the dead.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 480
What about the "I don't know why or how but matter definitely poofed out of thin air and no that isn't as crazy as thinking a supernatural force created it because I just say "Big Bang" and hope no one will ask where the extremely dense acorn came from" argument?
D
deleted50478
The true answer is 'I don't know.' Any other answer is just made up.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 480
I think we're getting closer to a middle ground. The fact of the matter is that in the absence of a higher being, the universe and existence being created from nothing (yes, even the primordial soup had to come into existence somehow) would violate many scientific principles dealing with creation and preservation of energy and mass. The irony is that many atheists accuse the religious of ignoring science. Perhaps we can agree that, God or no God, the creation of the universe defied science as we know it? So maybe we can drop the religion versus science argument all together?
Also, "I don't know" is an agnostic response, not an atheist.
