Finally, proof there is no God.
Discussion
s2art said:
Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I have NO belief in god(s)! I cannot be any clearer.
Now come on!If I was to say God does exist, or Gods definitely do exist would your answer be:
I agree, God or Gods definitely exist.
OR
I disagree, God or Gods definitely do not exist.
OR
I do not know either way.
OR
I do not know either way for sure, but I choose to accept the idea that God or Gods do exist.
OR
I do not know either way for sure, but I choose to reject the idea that God or Gods do exist.
OR
Would it be:
I acknowledge a God or Gods may exist, but I cannot be sure, however I choose not to FOLLOW God or Gods.
Hey, we are only on page 13. The last thread went on for 50 odd pages and went down hill fast resulting in a banning or two. The one thing i have learnt is that the religious will never we swayed so no point in debating issues. A great example is Richard Dawkins discussing a case where a world class scientist(at the time) who was also deeply religious, decided to burn his science books because it conflicted with his faith. My personal views are you don't want nuts like that in any educational field but it does show you the magnitude of the grip religion can have on some minds.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And as if by magic. Your choices are loaded to make it look like atheism is a stronger position than it actually is (ref my post above) funny how that works. 
My answer to your statement on the existence of god would be:
"Yep, OK, and......?"
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 09:57
Moonhawk said:
And as if by magic. Your choices are loaded to make it look like atheism is a stronger position than it actually is (ref my post above) funny how that works.
My answer to your statement on the existence of god would be:
"Yep, OK, and......?"
How can it be loaded? There are lots of options there, which one would you say best fits Atheism?My answer to your statement on the existence of god would be:
"Yep, OK, and......?"
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 09:57
Burwood said:
Hey, we are only on page 13. The last thread went on for 50 odd pages and went down hill fast resulting in a banning or two. The one thing i have learnt is that the religious will never we swayed so no point in debating issues. A great example is Richard Dawkins discussing a case where a world class scientist(at the time) who was also deeply religious, decided to burn his science books because it conflicted with his faith. My personal views are you don't want nuts like that in any educational field but it does show you the magnitude of the grip religion can have on some minds.
This thread was actually (alledgedly) about a scientific hypothesis.I've asked many times to get back to discussing that.
Burwood said:
You mean a specific religious speakers opinion. The fact is the bible is considered the word of god. The bible literally says so.
Don't use the word intellect and bible in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive.
This is just drivel. We don't have to believe any of the stuff ourselves, but if we are going to criticise what other people believe, hey, let's at the very least be honest about what they actually believe.Don't use the word intellect and bible in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive.
As per usual plenty of the aethiests on this thread are demonstrating ignorance and arrogance in equal measure while also claiming reason is on their side. It is utterly feeble.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because most of your answers have positive assertions in them.I would probably go with the "I do not know either way" answer.
As a scientist I see no evidence for the existence of god - but at the same time, I recognise that it's virtually impossible to prove a negative, so to make a positive assertion one way or the other would be unscientific. At best I could make an educated guess based on the balance of evidence.
At the same time however - I am without/lack belief in god (I do not believe god exists) and would therefore appear to fall under the definition of "atheist".
Lacking belief in something is not the same as the belief (or assertion) that it does not exist.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 11:58
ATG said:
This is just drivel. We don't have to believe any of the stuff ourselves, but if we are going to criticise what other people believe, hey, let's at the very least be honest about what they actually believe.
As per usual plenty of the aethiests on this thread are demonstrating ignorance and arrogance in equal measure while also claiming reason is on their side. It is utterly feeble.
Are you suggesting that there is any common belief? Because if you are, I'd suggest that you haven't looked into the various religious sects. It is quite clear that being part of the abrahamic tradition means inventing your own set of beliefs, in essence your own religion. So no one can be 'honest about what they actually believe' for anyone else as it covers a massive range. There are those who call themselves fundamentalist, born again, or members of certain sects, whose beliefs are open to ridicule. As per usual plenty of the aethiests on this thread are demonstrating ignorance and arrogance in equal measure while also claiming reason is on their side. It is utterly feeble.
There is no christian religion. There are only christian religions. There have been a number of catholic religions. There's the eastern and western catholics, there's even the catholic religion that Henry VIII instigated in this country, and many more around the world. Some acknowledge the pope of Vatican as their supposed head, others don't.
Once we get to other, non-catholic religions, then we run the gamut of those who just think it would be nice to go to church on occasion to those who dedicate their life to their choice of religion.
Many of these sects believe in the bible, often their own translation from James R, is the inspired word of their god.
As we have seen on this thread, and on many TV shows on religion, it is probable that the norm is those who profess to follow a particular sect actually invent their own. So there are those who think there was a flood, that it engulfed the whole world and that some 600-year-old bloke built a boat capable of holding all the animals in the world. And that the universe is not that old.
I helped out at a methodist church and my wife, who does not believe in any religion, taught in Sunday school. Despite the strictures of methodism, parties were wet and most adherents drank, and the majority got drunk. It was rather ironic that I, non-believer, was sober and the adherents to methodism drank.
The vicar, by the way, was remarkable. A fine, highly moral man for whom the needs of the community were uppermost. I'm not sure he was a christian in the accepted sens. I don't think he really cared if there was a god or not. He just like the service aspect of his church. Most of those who attended were very pleasant as well.
I don't call myself an atheist, agnostic, non-Arsenal supporter or anything. I just don't believe in any man-made religion. Oops, tautology there: I don't believe in any religion. Or is it a pleonasm?
Care to justify: ". . . plenty of the aethiests on this thread are demonstrating ignorance and arrogance in equal measure while also claiming reason is on their side. It is utterly feeble"?
Moonhawk said:
Because most of your answers have positive assertions in them.
I would probably go with the "I do not know either way" answer.
.
Then you'd probably agree (??) that it wouldn't be valid to lambast someone who chose to believe, because you don't have the knowledge to say otherwise.I would probably go with the "I do not know either way" answer.
.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 11:58
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Depends what they believe, why they believe it and what implications those beliefs have for them and those around them.People shouldn't be lambasted for simply holding personal beliefs - but when it comes to religion, I have found that those beliefs are rarely kept personal.
I don't believe in fairies - yet if somebody came knocking on my door trying to convince me as to the existence of fairies, criticised my lifestyle because I wasn't following fairy law etc - then they might come in for a bit of lambasting, especially if they couldn't support their assertions with evidence.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd March 12:54
Doesn't it come down to when you want your proof? Religious people are content (well some of them want to speed up the process i grant you) to wait until the afterlife to meet god and fid out if they were right. None religious want (expect) to know now. For those of you looking for parables, see Doubting Thomas.
Reading this earlier ""In this experiment the researchers did not observe any exotic states of matter. "That doesn't mean it didn't take place," said Smith. "It just means we weren't able to measure it." " made me think of this thread. Even scientists need faith sometimes! (from http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-s... )
Reading this earlier ""In this experiment the researchers did not observe any exotic states of matter. "That doesn't mean it didn't take place," said Smith. "It just means we weren't able to measure it." " made me think of this thread. Even scientists need faith sometimes! (from http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-s... )
Derek Smith said:
Are you suggesting that there is any common belief? Because if you are, I'd suggest that you haven't looked into the various religious sects. It is quite clear that being part of the abrahamic tradition means inventing your own set of beliefs, in essence your own religion. So no one can be 'honest about what they actually believe' for anyone else as it covers a massive range. There are those who call themselves fundamentalist, born again, or members of certain sects, whose beliefs are open to ridicule.
There is no christian religion. There are only christian religions. There have been a number of catholic religions. There's the eastern and western catholics, there's even the catholic religion that Henry VIII instigated in this country, and many more around the world. Some acknowledge the pope of Vatican as their supposed head, others don't.
Once we get to other, non-catholic religions, then we run the gamut of those who just think it would be nice to go to church on occasion to those who dedicate their life to their choice of religion.
Many of these sects believe in the bible, often their own translation from James R, is the inspired word of their god.
As we have seen on this thread, and on many TV shows on religion, it is probable that the norm is those who profess to follow a particular sect actually invent their own. So there are those who think there was a flood, that it engulfed the whole world and that some 600-year-old bloke built a boat capable of holding all the animals in the world. And that the universe is not that old.
I helped out at a methodist church and my wife, who does not believe in any religion, taught in Sunday school. Despite the strictures of methodism, parties were wet and most adherents drank, and the majority got drunk. It was rather ironic that I, non-believer, was sober and the adherents to methodism drank.
The vicar, by the way, was remarkable. A fine, highly moral man for whom the needs of the community were uppermost. I'm not sure he was a christian in the accepted sens. I don't think he really cared if there was a god or not. He just like the service aspect of his church. Most of those who attended were very pleasant as well.
I don't call myself an atheist, agnostic, non-Arsenal supporter or anything. I just don't believe in any man-made religion. Oops, tautology there: I don't believe in any religion. Or is it a pleonasm?
Care to justify: ". . . plenty of the aethiests on this thread are demonstrating ignorance and arrogance in equal measure while also claiming reason is on their side. It is utterly feeble"?
Derek, may I suggest that your own dislike of religion is simply a reflection of your inner self, that just because you don't follow a religion doesn't make it wrong for others to do so. All you are (repeatedly) stating is 'I am not religious'. Fine! You are not religious. Congratulations!There is no christian religion. There are only christian religions. There have been a number of catholic religions. There's the eastern and western catholics, there's even the catholic religion that Henry VIII instigated in this country, and many more around the world. Some acknowledge the pope of Vatican as their supposed head, others don't.
Once we get to other, non-catholic religions, then we run the gamut of those who just think it would be nice to go to church on occasion to those who dedicate their life to their choice of religion.
Many of these sects believe in the bible, often their own translation from James R, is the inspired word of their god.
As we have seen on this thread, and on many TV shows on religion, it is probable that the norm is those who profess to follow a particular sect actually invent their own. So there are those who think there was a flood, that it engulfed the whole world and that some 600-year-old bloke built a boat capable of holding all the animals in the world. And that the universe is not that old.
I helped out at a methodist church and my wife, who does not believe in any religion, taught in Sunday school. Despite the strictures of methodism, parties were wet and most adherents drank, and the majority got drunk. It was rather ironic that I, non-believer, was sober and the adherents to methodism drank.
The vicar, by the way, was remarkable. A fine, highly moral man for whom the needs of the community were uppermost. I'm not sure he was a christian in the accepted sens. I don't think he really cared if there was a god or not. He just like the service aspect of his church. Most of those who attended were very pleasant as well.
I don't call myself an atheist, agnostic, non-Arsenal supporter or anything. I just don't believe in any man-made religion. Oops, tautology there: I don't believe in any religion. Or is it a pleonasm?
Care to justify: ". . . plenty of the aethiests on this thread are demonstrating ignorance and arrogance in equal measure while also claiming reason is on their side. It is utterly feeble"?
I would rather you had the honesty, like Twigletthewonderkid, to state clearly that you are convinced there is no God and that you are perfectly happy living that way, instead of skirting round it.
mcdjl said:
Doesn't it come down to when you want your proof? Religious people are content (well some of them want to speed up the process i grant you) to wait until the afterlife to meet god and fid out if they were right. None religious want (expect) to know now. For those of you looking for parables, see Doubting Thomas.
Reading this earlier ""In this experiment the researchers did not observe any exotic states of matter. "That doesn't mean it didn't take place," said Smith. "It just means we weren't able to measure it." " made me think of this thread. Even scientists need faith sometimes! (from http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-s... )
I was about to say similar.Reading this earlier ""In this experiment the researchers did not observe any exotic states of matter. "That doesn't mean it didn't take place," said Smith. "It just means we weren't able to measure it." " made me think of this thread. Even scientists need faith sometimes! (from http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-s... )
Who is lambasting England for his hypothesis, when he has no real evidence for his suggestion?
Such a sad life waiting for proof......
mcdjl said:
Reading this earlier ""In this experiment the researchers did not observe any exotic states of matter. "That doesn't mean it didn't take place," said Smith. "It just means we weren't able to measure it." " made me think of this thread. Even scientists need faith sometimes! (from http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-s... )
That's not faith - that's just acknowledging the sensitivity and/or errors inherent in your experiment, or that your hypothesis or theory may be wrong. The solution is to design more sensitive experiments or to change your hypothesis/theory (i.e. your hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable).Moonhawk said:
That's not faith - that's just acknowledging the sensitivity and/or errors inherent in your experiment, or that your hypothesis or theory may be wrong. The solution is to design more sensitive experiments or to change your hypothesis/theory (i.e. your hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable).
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 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff