Do you believe in God?

[squigles]

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you o_o
Your definitions of knowledge and assumptions are so terribly, terribly skewed. Really now, Atheism is a neutral standpoint? Again, do you not know what neutral is?

So instead of providing any factual data, you're just going to sit here and tell me I'm wrong?

Interesting way of defending your position.

 

[ZK]

So instead of providing any factual data, you're just going to sit here and tell me I'm wrong?

Interesting way of defending your position.

Factual data is one thing, presenting opinions and viewpoints as factual data is another.

 

[AngryRock]

Interesting. My brother literally watched as a woman physically beat her husband with an umbrella or something...her husband was then dragged out of the lawyer's office by police who accused him of beating his wife while all the while it was the wife who was beating him. The cops knew this, and the lawyer was trying his best to tell them this, but despite what they were saying, the officers accused the man of being abusive, even though he was the only one with bruises.

In the USA, men are beaten and women get away with it. It doesn't matter what's happening, men are always the first to blame.

Things like that happen a whole lot in the USA.

 

[AngryRock]

Atheism IS a neutral standpoint. Its a position of reason in which a person does not assert belief in theistic claims. It's no different than any other neutral position. If we were talking about belief in Santa Claus, the neutral position is to NOT believe in Santa.



This is not true. Your understanding of atheism is so tragically skewed it's not funny. All the label 'atheism' signifies, is that a person DOES NOT believe theistic claims. That's it. Some atheists take a position where they assert that they know there is no god, which is called gnostic atheism.

Most intelligent atheists would not make such an assertion, leaving open the possibility of a god, simply because there is no evidence to prove otherwise. This position is called agnostic atheism. This is why it's important to discuss what you believe and why. It does absolutely zero good debating this subject without first taking a position on the subject.

Agnostics are neutral not athiests.

 

[squigles]

Factual data is one thing, presenting opinions and viewpoints as factual data is another.

You've made some nonsensical claims, I've refuted them with factual information that you can easily verify, and your only response is to completely ignore anything I've said.

Keep dodging.

Agnostics are neutral not athiests.

Now you're doing what the other guy is doing. So let me give you an example to help you understand what atheism really is.

Example 1:

You and I are sitting next to a pool on a warm day, sipping drinks and talking about various things. All of a sudden, you tell me that a couple nights earlier, this thing called a snerflegobliax, came into your house, took off all your clothes, and carried you outside to your front lawn.

You go into great detail to describe this creature, utterly convinced that everything you told me was 100% true and accurate.

I've never heard of a snerflegobliax, I've never seen one before, and I don't have any frame of reference to try and understand what your telling me. As a rational person, I would decline to agree with you on the subject. I would not assert belief in the snerflegobliax, so my position on the subject of snerflegobliax would be a neutral position.

If I were to agree with you about what happened, stating that I believed it was true, that would be a positive position regarding the snerflegobliax. Conversely, if I were to disagree with you about what happened, stating that there is no snerflegobliax, that would be a negative position.


Terminology:

Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to what you know or don't know. Theism and atheism refer to what you believe or don't believe.

Agnostic theism - this is a position of belief in a personal god or gods, without any degree of certainty.

Gnostic theism - this is a position of belief in a personal god or gods, with as much certainty as is possible.

Agnostic atheism - this is a position from a lack of belief in any god or gods, without any degree of certainty. (also known as weak atheism)

Gnostic atheism - this is a position from a lack of belief in any god or gods, with as much certainty as is possible. (also known as strong atheism.

Now, it's very important to understand the differences between these terms. Theism and atheism don't automatically fall into these four categories, it completely depends on your position. As an atheist, I don't couple my atheism with either agnosticism or gnosticism. I don't feel like the issue is important enough for me to assert any kind of certainty or uncertainty, I just choose not to acknowledge the issue.

I am as neutral about the position as I can be. There may be a god. There may not be a god. I do not believe in one, and I will not assert any level of certainty that there isn't one.

This is why the label 'atheist' is a neutral position. All the label tells you is that I don't believe in god. It does not tell you anything else, you cannot possibly determine anything more from that label other than the position of non belief.

What's more, is that it doesn't matter if we are talking about god or snerflegobliax. My lack of belief in either one is NOT a negative position. If I had never heard of either one before, my belief in them would be the exact same as it is now.

So you need to think really hard about this: If a person has never heard of god before, and therefore does not believe in him, is that a negative position? How is that any different than a person choosing not to believe?

 

[AngryRock]

You've made some nonsensical claims, I've refuted them with factual information that you can easily verify, and your only response is to completely ignore anything I've said.

Keep dodging.



Now you're doing what the other guy is doing. So let me give you an example to help you understand what atheism really is.

Example 1:

You and I are sitting next to a pool on a warm day, sipping drinks and talking about various things. All of a sudden, you tell me that a couple nights earlier, this thing called a snerflegobliax, came into your house, took off all your clothes, and carried you outside to your front lawn.

You go into great detail to describe this creature, utterly convinced that everything you told me was 100% true and accurate.

I've never heard of a snerflegobliax, I've never seen one before, and I don't have any frame of reference to try and understand what your telling me. As a rational person, I would decline to agree with you on the subject. I would not assert belief in the snerflegobliax, so my position on the subject of snerflegobliax would be a neutral position.

If I were to agree with you about what happened, stating that I believed it was true, that would be a positive position regarding the snerflegobliax. Conversely, if I were to disagree with you about what happened, stating that there is no snerflegobliax, that would be a negative position.


Terminology:

Gnosticism and agnosticism refer to what you know or don't know. Theism and atheism refer to what you believe or don't believe.

Agnostic theism - this is a position of belief in a personal god or gods, without any degree of certainty.

Gnostic theism - this is a position of belief in a personal god or gods, with as much certainty as is possible.

Agnostic atheism - this is a position from a lack of belief in any god or gods, without any degree of certainty. (also known as weak atheism)

Gnostic atheism - this is a position from a lack of belief in any god or gods, with as much certainty as is possible. (also known as strong atheism.

Now, it's very important to understand the differences between these terms. Theism and atheism don't automatically fall into these four categories, it completely depends on your position. As an atheist, I don't couple my atheism with either agnosticism or gnosticism. I don't feel like the issue is important enough for me to assert any kind of certainty or uncertainty, I just choose not to acknowledge the issue.

I am as neutral about the position as I can be. There may be a god. There may not be a god. I do not believe in one, and I will not assert any level of certainty that there isn't one.

This is why the label 'atheist' is a neutral position. All the label tells you is that I don't believe in god. It does not tell you anything else, you cannot possibly determine anything more from that label other than the position of non belief.

What's more, is that it doesn't matter if we are talking about god or snerflegobliax. My lack of belief in either one is NOT a negative position. If I had never heard of either one before, my belief in them would be the exact same as it is now.

So you need to think really hard about this: If a person has never heard of god before, and therefore does not believe in him, is that a negative position? How is that any different than a person choosing not to believe?

Atheism is the belief that there is no god like deity.

Agnosticism is the belief that a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in a god like deity.

In your example you gave more of a "I don't believe you." instead of what atheist would say like, "It does not exist." If you were neutral than you would say "It may or may not exist."

 

[squigles]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god like deity.

Agnosticism is the belief that a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in a god like deity.

In your example you gave more of a "I don't believe you." instead of what atheist would say like, "It does not exist." If you were neutral than you would say "It may or may not exist."

Incorrect. The word 'atheism' is just like the word 'asexual' or 'amoral' or 'apathetic.' All these words have their own meaning and function, and by putting the letter 'a' in front of them, it signifies 'without.' So the word 'atheism' literally means 'without theism.' It does not mean 'against theism' which would be the position 'there is no god.'

All the word 'atheism' describes, is the position of NOT believing in a god or anything else about a god. Where you go from that position, is completely independent of the word 'atheism' and the position it represents.

When you look at the words and their usage, 'theism' and 'atheism' pertain to belief. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. Gnostic and agnostic pertain to knowledge. You either know there is a god, or you don't. This is why there is such a thing as 'agnostic theism' or 'agnostic atheism.' Even 'gnostic theism' or 'gnostic atheism.'

Theism is a belief in god which is associated with the truth claims of religion. All atheists are doing is responding to these truth claims with 'I don't believe that.' This is not to say that atheists claim that theism is false. They are simply stating that they are not convinced of the truth of such claims. They remain unconvinced until such a time as there is evidence to the truth of theistic claims.

I think the trouble you are having is understanding the difference between someone who's making a positive claim, and someone who is making no claims at all.

 

[AngryRock]

Incorrect. The word 'atheism' is just like the word 'asexual' or 'amoral' or 'apathetic.' All these words have their own meaning and function, and by putting the letter 'a' in front of them, it signifies 'without.' So the word 'atheism' literally means 'without theism.' It does not mean 'against theism' which would be the position 'there is no god.'

All the word 'atheism' describes, is the position of NOT believing in a god or anything else about a god. Where you go from that position, is completely independent of the word 'atheism' and the position it represents.

When you look at the words and their usage, 'theism' and 'atheism' pertain to belief. You either have a belief in god, or you don't. Gnostic and agnostic pertain to knowledge. You either know there is a god, or you don't. This is why there is such a thing as 'agnostic theism' or 'agnostic atheism.' Even 'gnostic theism' or 'gnostic atheism.'

Theism is a belief in god which is associated with the truth claims of religion. All atheists are doing is responding to these truth claims with 'I don't believe that.' This is not to say that atheists claim that theism is false. They are simply stating that they are not convinced of the truth of such claims. They remain unconvinced until such a time as there is evidence to the truth of theistic claims.

I think the trouble you are having is understanding the difference between someone who's making a positive claim, and someone who is making no claims at all.

Yes, that prefix means without but the word itself means.

Webster's dictionary on Atheism - a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

There you have it. Atheists are not denying because they are unconvinced they are denying because they believe there is no deity. An agnostic is someone who does not believe because they are not convinced.

To prove how much atheists deny that there is a god (since it is shown that the probability of life spontaneously coming about is unbelievably high.) atheistic scientists move onto other theories to explain away that there can't be a god.

The multi-verse theory is one theory to compensate the chances of life happening. So that if there is an infinite number of universes there can be a infinite amount of chances for life to occur without God.

Another example is the alien seed theory where life on some other older distant planet evolved to the point where these aliens seeded earth. The atheistic scientists realize how improbable the chances of life occurring naturally that they think of another reason why life is on earth. This is a far more popular theory as it is starting to be a premise of many movies involving aliens.

These popular theories are enough proof to show that atheists deny not because they are not convinced, they deny because they do not wan't to believe.

 

[Wesobi]

I'd prefer not to see people discuss why other people's logic fail in their eyes, just to aggravate the other person.

If you're going to participate in this discussion, keep it clean, don't make it personal, and just overall discuss the topic, don't discuss why someone else sucks in your opinion.

 

[Uzamki Seerar]

why is this thread still here every religous thred i made died on the spot that was even just the mention of the word god wtfish

 

[squigles]

Yes, that prefix means without but the word itself means.

Webster's dictionary on Atheism - a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

There you have it. Atheists are not denying because they are unconvinced they are denying because they believe there is no deity. An agnostic is someone who does not believe because they are not convinced.

First of all, a dictionaries do not DEFINE words, they describe their usage. Because there is a segment of the population who is uneducated and ignorant (people like you), the writers of the dictionary must recognize that as a usage of the word, no matter how incorrect.

Secondly, somewhere out in the world, there is someone who has never heard of god or religion, and has absolutely no concept or opinion on the matter. What do you call that person in regards to their beliefs on god?

Lastly, it doesn't matter what your actual beliefs are, there is a position where an individual may refrain from asserting their beliefs. This is the neutral position. When it comes to belief in god, atheism is the neutral position of not asserting any belief.

There you have it. Atheists are not denying because they are unconvinced they are denying because they believe there is no deity. An agnostic is someone who does not believe because they are not convinced.

Not all atheists are the same. There definitely are some atheists in the world who assert that there is no god. This is what is known as gnostic atheism or strong atheism. Since you're so fond of the dictionary, look up those terms.

To prove how much atheists deny that there is a god (since it is shown that the probability of life spontaneously coming about is unbelievably high.) atheistic scientists move onto other theories to explain away that there can't be a god.

1. There is no scientific endeavor out to prove that there can't be a god.

2. 85% of the national academy of science members (best scientists in the world) do not believe in god.

3. You display your ignorance of science with this post by calling them 'atheistic scientists'.

[/quote]The multi-verse theory is one theory to compensate the chances of life happening. So that if there is an infinite number of universes there can be a infinite amount of chances for life to occur without God. [/quote]

The multiverse theory has nothing to do with the origins of life. It discusses the possibility of there being more than one universe which other universes could come from.

Another example is the alien seed theory where life on some other older distant planet evolved to the point where these aliens seeded earth. The atheistic scientists realize how improbable the chances of life occurring naturally that they think of another reason why life is on earth. This is a far more popular theory as it is starting to be a premise of many movies involving aliens.

Directed panspermia is one possible theory. Science is not biased like religion is, they follow the evidence. Do you not think that if there was evidence for god, any scientist would be fighting over the chance to be the first one to deliver such evidence? I mean, this is a rags to riches, instant nobel price, guaranteed funding, kind of discovery.

These popular theories are enough proof to show that atheists deny not because they are not convinced, they deny because they do not wan't to believe.

You are the perfect example of a biased creationist who can't possibly see past his own beliefs. You have no real concept of science or atheism. Everything you know is tragically skewed, and I challenge you to spend some time learning something about any of these subjects before you bother posting here again.

You must be registered for see links

 

[AngryRock]

Not all atheists are the same. There definitely are some atheists in the world who assert that there is no god. This is what is known as gnostic atheism or strong atheism. Since you're so fond of the dictionary, look up those terms.


1. There is no scientific endeavor out to prove that there can't be a god.

2. 85% of the national academy of science members (best scientists in the world) do not believe in god.

3. You display your ignorance of science with this post by calling them 'atheistic scientists'.

The multi-verse theory is one theory to compensate the chances of life happening. So that if there is an infinite number of universes there can be a infinite amount of chances for life to occur without God. [/quote]

The multiverse theory has nothing to do with the origins of life. It discusses the possibility of there being more than one universe which other universes could come from.



Directed panspermia is one possible theory. Science is not biased like religion is, they follow the evidence. Do you not think that if there was evidence for god, any scientist would be fighting over the chance to be the first one to deliver such evidence? I mean, this is a rags to riches, instant nobel price, guaranteed funding, kind of discovery.



You are the perfect example of a biased creationist who can't possibly see past his own beliefs. You have no real concept of science or atheism. Everything you know is tragically skewed, and I challenge you to spend some time learning something about any of these subjects before you bother posting here again.

You must be registered for see links

[/QUOTE]

1.Science can be biased

2.How is it ignorance to say atheistic scientist. Not all scientists are atheists, agnostics or religious so I am specifying the type of scientist.

3.And you don't think you are biased xd

 

[squigles]

1.Science can be biased

Science is only ever biased towards the truth, facts, and evidence. Individual scientists can be biased for other reasons, but their work has to survive the peer review process, which is exactly why academia has peer review to begin with. It's like I said before, if there was any truth to religion, if god was a fact, and if there was evidence to support any of it, then it would be the most important discovery in the history of the world.

2.How is it ignorance to say atheistic scientist. Not all scientists are atheists, agnostics or religious so I am specifying the type of scientist.

Because science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You might as well call them 'blue scientists.' Or 'cheddar cheese scientists.' Or even 'plastic chair scientists.' The lead researcher for the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, is a gnostic theist. He is 100% convinced that god exists, and even confessed his faith in a book where he describes witnessing a frozen waterfall as a sign of the holy trinity.

Yet he was in charge of the biggest evolutionary biology project humanity has ever done. No, most smart people don't call him a 'theistic scientist' because religion is 100% irrelevant to science.

3.And you don't think you are biased

Oh, I am biased..... towards the truth, facts, and evidence. I have no time for things that aren't true, have zero basis in fact, nor any evidentiary support. So when you make a post that discusses a position of belief in an incorrect fashion, and I make corrections for you, yes, I am being biased.

But at least I am not making claims about your beliefs that aren't true.

 

[Dr Dark Knight]

science is biased?

so why are you people believing in THEORIES? why not believe is the LAWS.
Theories are just philosophical interpretations without any proof. They are called the big bang theory, the Darwin theory etc. believe in laws. not theories.

 

[AmaniPaz]

No, but I am also not atheist

 

[squigles]

science is biased?

so why are you people believing in THEORIES? why not believe is the LAWS.
Theories are just philosophical interpretations without any proof. They are called the big bang theory, the Darwin theory etc. believe in laws. not theories.

No, you are referring to the colloquial definition of the word 'theory.' Such as, 'in theory, the robber broke into the convenience store, emptied the register, and then fled the scene of the crime.'

In science, you don't start off with a theory and then prove it. Instead, you start of with an observation, and then devise predictions and ways to test those predictions. This is known as a hypothesis. Then you conduct your tests and collect data which would either support or reject your hypothesis.

Once you've collected enough data, you then submit your work to the scientific community for peer review. Other scientists either falsify your work by conducting the same tests, or they devise new ways to test, working to falsify it. Once the rest of the scientific community has collected enough data, they too submit it to the rest of the community. If no one can falsify your work, then your hypothesis graduates to a Theory, which is the highest form of science there is.

In science, a theory is not a hunch or a guess. It is a well documented, thoroughly tested explanation and working model of a concept, which is supported by extensive evidence. A law, is different than a theory. No theory ever becomes a law. Instead, the word 'law' is used to explain the mathematics that support a theory. The difference comes when you understand that the only thing in science that is ever considered 'proof' is math. When you have sound mathematics that support a theory, they are unlikely to ever be changed or disproved. This is why they become laws.

With a theory, it is subject to change at any time as sufficient evidence is found to disprove it. This is the reason why science is biased towards the truth, facts, and evidence. It's not important to science to discover things which have no factual basis. We could not fly rockets to Mars unless we had a sound understanding of physics and math. We could not cure diseases unless we had a sound understanding of biology and chemistry.

The theories we develop in science give us the understanding of these things, they afford us the working models by which we use to develop new advances in science, technology, and medicine. Laws explain the mathematics surrounding those things.

Like I said, look up these terms in a dictionary, it will describe the usage of those words, and you will gain a better understanding of science.

 

[AngryRock]

No, you are referring to the colloquial definition of the word 'theory.' Such as, 'in theory, the robber broke into the convenience store, emptied the register, and then fled the scene of the crime.'

In science, you don't start off with a theory and then prove it. Instead, you start of with an observation, and then devise predictions and ways to test those predictions. This is known as a hypothesis. Then you conduct your tests and collect data which would either support or reject your hypothesis.

Once you've collected enough data, you then submit your work to the scientific community for peer review. Other scientists either falsify your work by conducting the same tests, or they devise new ways to test, working to falsify it. Once the rest of the scientific community has collected enough data, they too submit it to the rest of the community. If no one can falsify your work, then your hypothesis graduates to a Theory, which is the highest form of science there is.

In science, a theory is not a hunch or a guess. It is a well documented, thoroughly tested explanation and working model of a concept, which is supported by extensive evidence. A law, is different than a theory. No theory ever becomes a law. Instead, the word 'law' is used to explain the mathematics that support a theory. The difference comes when you understand that the only thing in science that is ever considered 'proof' is math. When you have sound mathematics that support a theory, they are unlikely to ever be changed or disproved. This is why they become laws.

With a theory, it is subject to change at any time as sufficient evidence is found to disprove it. This is the reason why science is biased towards the truth, facts, and evidence. It's not important to science to discover things which have no factual basis. We could not fly rockets to Mars unless we had a sound understanding of physics and math. We could not cure diseases unless we had a sound understanding of biology and chemistry.

The theories we develop in science give us the understanding of these things, they afford us the working models by which we use to develop new advances in science, technology, and medicine. Laws explain the mathematics surrounding those things.

Like I said, look up these terms in a dictionary, it will describe the usage of those words, and you will gain a better understanding of science.

You must be registered for see images

This is the process for theories.

 

[squigles]

You must be registered for see images

This is the process for theories.

It is one interpretation for it, sure. It does not disagree with what I said, as much as you want it to. Conveniently, it leaves out the peer review process and the necessary steps that are required for a hypothesis to graduate to a theory.

Also, it doesn't agree with the other guy who clearly does not have any understanding of science. In fact, it proves him wrong.

 

[Pwner10144]

wow the one question wich always is the most popular,a litttle risk i would say never know how this will go but looks like people really are keen to share there ideas and theorys.

well i do believe in God and mainly becuase this world now needs a god,not going to waste time and space explaing the cosmological and teleological arguments because am pretty sure you guys know them anyway,am just going to explain what i think.

I think that God does exist however the image that the christians how conveyed us is misleading and unreliable and thats why so many other religons have decided to have there own theorys,
another point is that the bible says that god is all loving all powerfull surely that means he knows the destiny of the universe and he can alter it right?that means he knew that eve was going to betray him and eat the apple he knew everything and so he yet did not stop that and create better beings?

also people always complain why God is not changing this world to a better place stop eveil things?,well my answear to that is look what we have done to this planet,we kill each other for stupid reasons, we create co2,dump waste into seas and rivers and a lot more shit,if i was god i would shit all over earth for all the idoic things we do day in and day out.

finaly the problem of eveil,what i believe is that the world could not exist without good and eveil,and more importnatly we have the choice to do good or eveil,imagine a chess board there a even number of white pieces as there are black and you could not play the game if there were not,and i think god does not take part in our life unless we ask him but i am not not sure to what extent.

As far as all the scientific theorys go,they make sense al admit that and also they have proof for most points, however if we are created by a higher force surely science itself belongs to him and maybe big bang was started by god.

 

[squigles]

well i do believe in God and mainly becuase this world now needs a god

Why does this world need a god? What would god do for anyone, that good people cannot do for each other or themselves?

I think that God does exist however the image that the christians how conveyed us is misleading and unreliable and thats why so many other religons have decided to have there own theorys,

Why do you think god exists? Also, there are over 10,000 different denominations of Christianity, all of which have their own teachings and beliefs based on the bible. On top of which, there are thousands of other non christian religions that have entirely different holy books and teachings.

What Christianity says about god has nothing to do with whether or not god actually exists or what's true. Please don't use the word 'theory' in conjunction with religion.

another point is that the bible says that god is all loving all powerfull surely that means he knows the destiny of the universe and he can alter it right?that means he knew that eve was going to betray him and eat the apple he knew everything and so he yet did not stop that and create better beings?

That's just it. The bible doesn't depict a happy unicorns and rainbows type of god who gives butterfly kisses to everyone and sprinkles them with love dust and good fortune. If you actually read the bible, it instead depicts this egotistical, angry, spiteful, merciless, vengeful, destructive, careless, and genocidal god that cares more about forcing people to respect and love him, than their own thoughts and feelings.

The bible paints god as this little kid who throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get what he wants, and then goes on a rampage to pull the wings off of flies and burn ants alive. So it's a safe bet that one of two things is likely true:

1. What the bible says about god is flat out wrong.

2. God doesn't deserve anything from humanity.

also people always complain why God is not changing this world to a better place stop eveil things?,well my answear to that is look what we have done to this planet,we kill each other for stupid reasons, we create co2,dump waste into seas and rivers and a lot more shit,if i was god i would shit all over earth for all the idoic things we do day in and day out.

God supposedly made people that way intentionally. Of all the ways he could of made things instead, he chose to make things in a way that results in the world we have. The world where people kill each other over petty differences, where good people die from starvation and disease.

This is why you have to consider the facts:

1. What the bible says about god is wrong.

2. God doesn't deserve anything from humanity.

finaly the problem of eveil,what i believe is that the world could not exist without good and eveil,and more importnatly we have the choice to do good or eveil,imagine a chess board there a even number of white pieces as there are black and you could not play the game if there were not,and i think god does not take part in our life unless we ask him but i am not not sure to what extent.

There's a famous quote by the physicist Steven Wienberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

As far as all the scientific theorys go,they make sense al admit that and also they have proof for most points, however if we are created by a higher force surely science itself belongs to him and maybe big bang was started by god.

If there really is a god, and he cares about whether or not we know about him, all it takes for him to fix that issue, is to speak to everyone around the world at the same time in the appropriate languages. Why do we need to rely on a poorly written book by fallible men from a bronze age desert dwelling people?

Let's put science and religion through their paces for a second. Let's assume that you have a water well in your back yard. Now, let's assume that the water in your well appears to be drying up, losing considerable amounts of water each day. If it keeps up at the rate it's going, you will no longer have a clean water source for you and your family. This is a big issue, without water, your family will surely die.

So what do you do? Do you pray to god to fix your well and provide you with an infinite supply of water? Or do you hire a couple geologists and civil engineers to figure out why your well is losing water, and a way to solve the problem?

I'd vote for the latter, since I can't be arsed to wait for a magical fix to my problem while my family dies. And you see, this is how things have gone since science has become a thing. As time goes on, we gain a better understanding of how the universe works, and we come up with realistic, viable, and reliable methods for solving the problems of humanity.

Without science, we'd still be living in the bronze age where people died waiting for god to magically fix their wells. Without science, we'd still be dying from the common cold and infections from minor cuts. Without science, we'd still be dying from childbirth. Science has given our species the tools to live longer, healthier lives with the ability to gain more enjoyment from them as a social species.