People who are able to take things both on faith, and also use their own reason and common sense gets further than people who just takes everything on faith, or people who demands that everything should be proven, even things that cannot be proven når disproven..
And do you have any proof of this claim? No, of course not, because those without this so-called faith get just as far in life as those who do not. In fact, I could pose just the opposite (sans proof, as you just did), that those without faith approach in a much more regimental and responsible fashion, thus are more likely to become successful.
I'm not sure how that's a rebuttal. There are a lot of things that I dislike, but don't think the government should have any say about. I also don't see how you not being a Christian in any way harms those who are. Non-believers are also not harmed by the thoughts or words of believers either, but unfortunately things too often go beyond just words.
We had this discussion before Artemis, but I'll reiterate. It is not even remotely true that non-believers are not harmed by the thoughts or words of believers, and especially not by their actions. The Inquisition is a prime example but, for more recent incidents, we have the
attack on same-sex marriage, the
murdering of abortion doctors, the
killing of Judeo-Christians by Muslims, the
killing of Muslims by Judeo-Christians, the words and actions of the
Westboro Baptist Church (at soldier funerals and otherwise), the ostracizing, physical abuse, incarceration and
murder of bi/homo/transexuals, the whole-scale
undermining of scientific discovery and education, the brutal utilization of religion as
a means to recruit people into hate groups such as KKK and the White Supremacist movement, the manipulation and exploitation of ignorant folk into
believing stem cell research is evil, the blatant lies posed about how the Earth, and all life in it, is here for us to harvest at our leisure and that
God will provide when all evidence demonstrates we're exhausting its resources and posing to extinction its so-called harvest of plants/forests/animals, the
ignorance bent into the minds of our youth into thinking evolution is not factual when it is both fact and theory, the deceptive inclusion of
puritanical laws into both State and Nation, the
suppression of women's rights, etc and so on.
Artemis, Christianity, religion as a whole,
DOES hurt everyone. Words are not the end page of this and claiming such is simply a false presentation of the severity of this problem plaguing both our nations and the world.
Now, let's take it from your own words of "assumption". If it's such a mistake for you to assume, then firstly why is there ever such a word? And isn't this assumption also the main thing relied upon by the "Big Bang" theory of the scholarly scientists? If nothing is nothing; we go back to the very first question...if there was totally nothing, how come there was a big bang in the first place? Wasn't it true that the big bang came from something as well? Now, these that caused the big bang, therefore is something, and comes again the question - where did it come from?
Why is there a word called assumption? Oh, I don't know, maybe for the same reason there's a word called ignorance, or hate, or destruction, or denial. Because it exists.
And no, assumption is
not the main thing relied upon by the "Big Bang" theory, it is evidence --- data. Substantial evidence, presented by the motions of the galaxies, the expansion of the universe, and the singular path away from a particular point in space that serves as the evidence of a Big Bang. Inclusive of this is the various particle and wave studies performed demonstrating a sort of evolution in molecular complexity.
As to what the Big Bang came from, all is not yet known. It is not known what came before the Big Bang. For the most part, suppositions are presented and postulated upon. But here's the big difference Angle: the scientific community doesn't
presume to know the answers to things they do not yet know the answers to. They do not
claim a falsehood, or an unknown, as FACT. It is, in contrast, the approach of religions to pose FACTs out of nothing, with no evidence whatsoever. Claims are made on a daily basis of GOD having created the universe, and there is absolutely nothing to support this, nothing. The transliterated 2,000+ year old words of primitive men in togas is not support, it is not evidence, and it is clearly not educated
(any reasonably sane person, using a modicum of logic would come to this conclusion, but dogmatism is an onerous pet and an expensive one to feed).
The scientific community has some base assumptions, but it is these base assumptions that stand as reliable laws on the ways and actions of the universe and our daily lives. Laws of motion, of energy, of matter. These laws are assumptions, but they are based on irrefutable evidence and our ability to manipulate motion, energy and matter is demonstrative of the correctness of these assumptions. In fact, our lives, our sanity, relies on our comprehension and acceptance of these most basic laws. Why? Because without them we could just as well believe we're imagining everything that is happening around us and thus not make any effort whatsoever to co-exist or even interact with this assumed reality.
So, what was all that about? It's an effort for me to explain the difference between grounded, evidence-based assumption (natural laws), and fantasy-based delusions not grounded in any evidence whatsoever. The postulations of religions are not based on any evidence. Religion, beliefs, stand as their own base, and on top of that base of assumption are notions used to support the assumption, whilst ignoring and/or dismissing any data that is contra to that assumption. This is not even remotely acceptable because, when there is evidence in contra, it firmly disputes the assumption (null & void). But, it is the way that religion works and it is this distortion of analytical thought that is one of the most destructive aspects of religion, of belief. It does not pose a different way of thinking, it poses an unhealthy, a wrong way, of thinking (dogmatism).
"A dogmatical spirit inclines a man to be censorious of his neighbors. Every one of his opinions appears to him written, as it were, with sunbeams, and he grows angry that his neighbors do not see it in the same light. He is tempted to disdain his correspondents as men of low and dark understandings because they do not believe what he does." ~ Isaac Watts
