Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
Blib said:
What fascinates me is that many tens of millions of people lead happy, productive, peaceful lives and they claim that their faith is the basis, the bedrock of all that they achieve.
I've yet to see an atheist explain that one away. (Not that I've actively looked for such an explanation, admittedly)
Why does it need explaining away? It is well documented that if people have a positive outlook - they are more likely to achieve. The fact that some people attribute their positive outlook to their faith is hardly surprising.I've yet to see an atheist explain that one away. (Not that I've actively looked for such an explanation, admittedly)
Blib said:
It is surprising that they believe it is their faith that gives them that outlook. It is not 'some people'. It is tens, even hundreds of millions of people.
Why?My experience of people with strong faith is that they always seem to attribute the positive things in their life to their faith (something good happens, praise be to god etc). The bad stuff is usually put down to dumb luck (unless they are particularly fundamentalist - when it could well be punishment from god too).
Moonhawk said:
Blib said:
It is surprising that they believe it is their faith that gives them that outlook. It is not 'some people'. It is tens, even hundreds of millions of people.
Why?My experience of people with strong faith is that they always seem to attribute the positive things in their life to their faith (something good happens, praise be to god etc). The bad stuff is usually put down to dumb luck (unless they are particularly fundamentalist - when it could well be punishment from god too).
BTW. For someone who personally 'doesn't care' about these things and sees discussion as 'futile', you do an awful lot of discussing. Kind of takes me back to my first post.
Blib said:
Not my experience at all. They put bad things that happen to them down to "God's will".
BTW. For someone who personally 'doesn't care' about these things and sees discussion as 'futile', you do an awful lot of discussing. Kind of takes me back to my first post.
I don't care about proving god doesn't exist, as I have already stated, it's likely impossible anyway - however it's an interesting discussion.BTW. For someone who personally 'doesn't care' about these things and sees discussion as 'futile', you do an awful lot of discussing. Kind of takes me back to my first post.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Did the scientist 'suggest' it? The only direct quote from the scientist in that article makes no mention of god.Here is a link to the actual article on the Quanta magazine website (from January 2014) - and it doesn't mention god either.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-phys...
Moonhawk said:
Did the scientist 'suggest' it? The only direct quote from the scientist in that article makes no mention of god.
Here is a link to the actual article on the Quanta magazine website (from January 2014) - and it doesn't mention god either.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-phys...
Sounds like the folllower's own interpretations, that's why I mentioned hypothesis becomes theory becomes truth in two steps from suggestion to newspaper article to PH thread title!Here is a link to the actual article on the Quanta magazine website (from January 2014) - and it doesn't mention god either.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-phys...
On a slight tangent. I was looking at the Wikipedia article on religion in the UK.
According to that - a British Social Attitudes survey conducted in 2013 put the number of people in Great Britain identifying as having "No Religion" at 50.6%.
I would not have thought it was that high and found it quite surprising to think that non-religious people may now outnumber the religious.
According to that - a British Social Attitudes survey conducted in 2013 put the number of people in Great Britain identifying as having "No Religion" at 50.6%.
I would not have thought it was that high and found it quite surprising to think that non-religious people may now outnumber the religious.
Article said:
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.
Bible said:
God said let there be light and there was light. On the second day God said light there be life and there was life
Yeah, clearly this is going to get a whole lot worse for religionists.Moonhawk said:
The "follower" was somebody from Dawkins website. I suspect they have their own agenda in pushing the suggestion that the article somehow disproves god (likely an 'ad revenue per website hit' type agenda).
Of course they have their own agenda, seeking to use one thing as evidence to validate their own beliefs.But back to the scientific hypothesis, it does sound rather intriguing a suggestion, however, if things somehow 'need' to absorb or dissipate energy and living things are supposedly better at that then why, if an organism, a lump of metal and a piece of stone were to be boiled in a vat, which items would continue to absorb energy and dissipate it time and time again?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff