/lit/ - Literature

>>5363105
>I could have mentioned the book of Mormon
Yes, but you did not.

I'm a pseudo-intellectual pleb that has no knowledge of philosophy or deep thought of any kind, so please keep that in mind when reading this post.

As an onlooker to the debate, I feel as if the arguments presented by both atheism and theism seem to go back to the point of "trust" versus "faith" respectively. The logic of science is fantastic at explaining how we've arrived at our current point in time and is extremely fascinating, yet it doesn't explain that there can't be an abstract "God." In contrast, theism explains the concept of God but the science behind it (or lack thereof) seems improbable; nevertheless, it explains our purpose.

Theism explains to put faith in God, but Atheism asks to put trust in science to guide your life. Aren't they technically the same argument but with a different label? Science, at no point whatsoever, gives me any satisfaction knowing why we're here. It seems to me that "science" is a re-branded version of religion (like Stalinism, only more tame.)

I've talked to atheists and theists alike, both have the same underlying principles of "put faith/trust in science because the bible/scientist said so." The difference here is that one is reality and the other is "transcendence."

I apologize if this is the worst question you've ever seen, but /lit/ has some really good discussion and hopefully it can answer my question despite the clusterfuck.

tl;dr Both science and theism explains jack shit to me. Seems to me that both are rebranded of the same concept except through different mediums.

Sum up /lit/ with a biblical quote.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6)