Finally, proof there is no God.

[Moonhawk]

mcdjl said:

It is a faith. Belief requires faith. Hes just going to test his faith by spending shed loads of cash. If he was more religious he wouldn't bother. The religious test their faith or belief in god by living a good life (as far as they can see/as defined by their religion) and waiting for the after life. In fact the non-religious test their faith in lack of god in exactly the same way

The word "faith" has a few defintions though. The word "faith" as used in that context means "confidence or trust" in something.

You can be confident (and therefore have faith) that an experiment will give the results you expect. That is a very different meaning to the way "faith" is used in a religious context.

If you have faith/confidence that an experiment will give a certain result based on the underlying theory - and it comes out differently. That faith or confidence was misplaced and the theory is revised (i.e. the theory is falsified).

Falsifiability is not a concept that is compatible with religious faith - which is unequivocal.

This goes back to the wordplay argument. You are using one definition of a word and applying it in a context where another definition for the same word already exists and would be more appropriate. You are then trying to make out that because the same word is used - the argument is equivalent (i.e. Religions people have faith, scientists have faith - therefore they are both equally valid)

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 13:36

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You can suggest what you want, of course. That's the nature of forums.

I have not 'just stated' anything. I've mentioned the history of catholicism, what some sects say and I've quoted a bit out of James R. I've argued a number of points, many of which have not been taken up by the opposition, such is the nature of forums.

If I believe in anything, it is that history rules the present to a considerable degree. Without knowing the history of catholicism, or perhaps not acknowledging it, you can't define it currently, understand it or argue for it coherently.

You would rather I said I did not believe in a god. I certainly find the abrahamic god, in all its guises, a bit of a non-starter, but to be honest, I don't know. Neither do you, nor does anyone else. There is no proof there is no god. I think most of the non-believers on here suggest that. I think it highly unlikely there is one.

I don't believe in an afterlife, although it would be nice if there was one. I don't dismiss it out of hand, but I do think it highly unlikely. I've heard a ghost, or what was described as a ghost by most of those present. I don't know what it was. I doubt it was a ghost, but it might well be possible. But even if it was a ghost, it neither proves nor disproves a god.

I don't believe in any religion. Beyond that I don't really care. This seems to upset you. I'm not sure why.

I like to think that I'd accept evidence of anything. I've done it in the past, where my prejudices have been overturned. I see no reason why it would not happen if it came to god/gods or super beings. I doubt they do exist but you never know.

However, no one knows. There is no evidence to support them. So believing in them is rather silly I think.

[mcdjl]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Choosing to believe in something quite preposterous, like an invisible man in the sky, when there is no evidence for it, is not equal to choosing not to believe in something quite preposterous, like an invisible man in the sky, despite the fact that you cannot equivocally prove it doesn't exist.

It is reasonable for me to think my neighbour is a loon for believing he has fairies at the bottom of his garden. It is not reasonable for him to think I'm a loon for laughing at him when I can't prove he doesn't.

Can you not see the difference? All beliefs are not equally valid.

I bet you wife can remember telling you things that you can't remember her telling you. I bet neither of you can prove yourself right though. Who should laugh at who?
As for having RE in schools. Why not? It allows you to understand religions. They've played a major part in the history of the world and will play a part in its future. Teaching your kids about other people motivations and helping them understand their points of view is massively useful. Even RE in religious schools does (should do) this rather than teaching them to be what ever religion. As other people pointed out RE actually covers more things such including modern morailty and ethics which don't fit into other subjects.

[Moonhawk]

Derek Smith said:

However, no one knows. There is no evidence to support them. So believing in them is rather silly I think.

That's just it - choosing one out of the many arbitrarily, especially given the potential consequence of choosing wrong seems rather reckless.

If i'm wrong - i'd much rather stand at the pearly gates in front of whichever god turns out to be the correct one and argue that I used the intelligence that was gifted to me to make an informed decision based on available evidence - rather than say "I just rolled the dice" or "I just went with the religion of my parents".

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mcdjl said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Choosing to believe in something quite preposterous, like an invisible man in the sky, when there is no evidence for it, is not equal to choosing not to believe in something quite preposterous, like an invisible man in the sky, despite the fact that you cannot equivocally prove it doesn't exist.

It is reasonable for me to think my neighbour is a loon for believing he has fairies at the bottom of his garden. It is not reasonable for him to think I'm a loon for laughing at him when I can't prove he doesn't.

Can you not see the difference? All beliefs are not equally valid.

I bet you wife can remember telling you things that you can't remember her telling you. I bet neither of you can prove yourself right though. Who should laugh at who?

A mountain of evidence accumulated over the last 30 yrs would say that she is right, because invariably she told me and I wasn't listening properly.

HTH.

[RTB]

Null hypothesis:

"God or Gods have no detectable influence on the universe"

If anyone can show some falsifiable evidence to disprove this null hypothesis I would sit up and listen. Down through the ages we've only had rhetoric and bullying.

[mcdjl]

Moonhawk said:

mcdjl said:

It is a faith. Belief requires faith. Hes just going to test his faith by spending shed loads of cash. If he was more religious he wouldn't bother. The religious test their faith or belief in god by living a good life (as far as they can see/as defined by their religion) and waiting for the after life. In fact the non-religious test their faith in lack of god in exactly the same way

The word "faith" has a few defintions though. The word "faith" as used in that context means "confidence or trust" in something.

You can be confident (and therefore have faith) that an experiment will give the results you expect. That is a very different meaning to the way "faith" is used in a religious context.

If you have faith/confidence that an experiment will give a certain result based on the underlying theory - and it comes out differently. That faith or confidence was misplaced and the theory is revised (i.e. the theory is falsified).

Falsifiability is not a concept that is compatible with religious faith - which is unequivocal.

This goes back to the wordplay argument. You are using one definition of a word and applying it in a context where another definition for the same word already exists and would be more appropriate. You are then trying to make out that because the same word is used - the argument is equivalent (i.e. Religions people have faith, scientists have faith - therefore they are both equally valid)

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 13:36

No they are confident, they do an experiment. They just can't report back on the results and have no opportunity to repeat or modify the experiment.

[Moonhawk]

mcdjl said:

No they are confident, they do an experiment. They just can't report back on the results and have no opportunity to repeat or modify the experiment.

So religious adherents do require evidence then - it's just a question of when they are prepared to accept this evidence.

[mcdjl]

RTB said:

Null hypothesis:

"God or Gods have no detectable influence on the universe"

If anyone can show some falsifiable evidence to disprove this null hypothesis I would sit up and listen. Down through the ages we've only had rhetoric and bullying.

Religions exist. People do things in theirs gods name. Therefore gods have had an effect on the universe. How does that prove whether or not they exist?

[RTB]

mcdjl said:

Religions exist. People do things in theirs gods name. Therefore gods have had an effect on the universe. How does that prove whether or not they exist?

It proves people exist

[mcdjl]

Moonhawk said:

So religious adherents do require evidence then - it's just a question of when they are prepared to accept this evidence.

Yup, as I said about 15 posts back up the page/on the last one

[Moonhawk]

mcdjl said:

Moonhawk said:

So religious adherents do require evidence then - it's just a question of when they are prepared to accept this evidence.

Yup, as I said about 15 posts back up the page/on the last one

OK fair enough.

Given that religious people do require evidence - is it reasonable to treat their religious belief as an untested (and more to the point, un-testable for all intents and purposes) hypothesis.

[s2art]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This is bonkers. I have defined my position as having no belief in god(s) and being agnostic. That is a complete description. If you like try; if someone told me there was/wasnt any god(s) it wouldnt do me any good as I have no way of testing the proposition.

[anonymous-user]

s2art said:

This is bonkers. I have defined my position as having no belief in god(s) and being agnostic. That is a complete description. If you like try; if someone told me there was/wasnt any god(s) it wouldnt do me any good as I have no way of testing the proposition.

Which one of those answers best represents your viewpoint?

[s2art]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

None. I have described my position completely. You have failed to understand. It looks like you have a 'god shaped' hole in your thinking and are unable to think outside it.

[Moonhawk]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Why does somebody have to choose from your list. Surely the best person to describe their own viewpoint is the person who holds it.

Most of your answers (if not all of them) are loaded. You have no option for somebody who is without or lacks belief, and who makes no assertion about the existence of or nature of god(s).

It's almost as if you are trying to get people to imply or assert that they actively disbelieve in the existence of god

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 16:37

[2013BRM]

How about defining what god you choose to believe in and why? there are countless varieties of 'god' and ways of worshipping them all of which range from the personal via ludicrous to downright evil, who is right?

[Bill]

Exactly, the default is not "there is god" any more than the default is that fairies, dragons or lizard overlords exist. Lack of belief in something is not disbelief.

[Derek Smith]

An old school friend, some 50 years after I last saw him, contacted me through Facebook and asked if I wanted to meet him. We got on fairly well from what I can remember and so I agreed to a meet in Costa. I didn't read the gubbins at the bottom of his email. Big mistake.

He started chatting about his failures in life: divorce x 2, estranged children and a short time spent inside for errors that were not his fault. I was beginning to regret meeting up. Then he came out with the 'then I found Jesus'. By that time I'd decided to cut a run and as I got up from the table he grabbed my arm and said something like he could help me find my way, general rubbish. I then said: 'Oh, christ, I don't want to know.'

He then said that I should not take the lord god's name in vain.

I pointed out that Jesus was not the lord god and that in any case christ was a title and not a name. Bad thing to say evidently. We were asked to leave, due to his shouting, and I apologised but a woman on an adjacent table came to my defence, saying that I'd been quite polite and it was 'the small man' who caused all the aggro. He then had a go at her.

I left.

So what about:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-bu...

[mcdjl]

Moonhawk said:

mcdjl said:

Moonhawk said:

So religious adherents do require evidence then - it's just a question of when they are prepared to accept this evidence.

Yup, as I said about 15 posts back up the page/on the last one

OK fair enough.

Given that religious people do require evidence - is it reasonable to treat their religious belief as an untested (and more to the point, un-testable for all intents and purposes) hypothesis.

I didn't quite see where that was going. Perhaps I should have said no they don't require evidence, they just get it at some point after their death when they either arrive at the pearly gates (other options may exist) or ummm, well, don't.
As far as an untestable hypothesis goes, on the above basis I'm not sure I'd agree. Its tested every day, its just that those of us still alive don't get to know the results. So to someone not inclined to believe, well yes it untested, and without dying it is basically untestable unless you can find a way to get messages back from beyond. Maybe you could go do some interviews on someone bought back to life after a heart attack/whatever. Even then don't expect to have your evidence accepted, they wouldn't be quite dead enough/it wasn't a white light (well it was, just of the operating theatre) etc