neither side can prove anything to the other to the contrary.
50/50 either way then? 😀
I don't believe in God, because I don't feel the need to. However if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't know.
How about the Underpants Gnomes? Are they a known unknown too?
No, they're an unknown unknown, just like God!
I don't believe in God, because I don't feel the need to. However if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't know.
+1
The way I see it, we're basically grubs with a jumped up opinion of our ability to define the indefinable... and, often, joyously to willy wave our rationalism in the face of impossible questions.
Molly has it, I think.
neither side can prove anything to the other to the contrary
indeed but one side claim something exists , presents no evidence for it then claims it as valid as anything else
You cannot prove a negative which means this is true of anything I make up - i just need to make sure its false as then there will be no evidence
Its not equally valid. its not even close.
If someone makes a claim it is not unreasonable to expect them to present evidence nor is it unreasonable to discount it if they present none
Russell's teapot
Anyone else think that Tucker needs to calm down a bit before he has a stroke.
And just for the record molgrips, do you consider this thread to now be beyond the capabilities of people like (were they all living now):blah..
Charles Darwin
blah...
I thought Darwin was an agnostic, which is very different from an Atheist as they are bit more open minded.
Would children still have their penises mutilated were it not for the bibles? Almost certainly not.
My money is on they would be, Atheists can be just as controlling as people with faith, just look at what happened to the Jews by a group of Atheists.
If someone makes a claim it is not unreasonable to expect them to present evidence nor is it unreasonable to discount it if they present none
You may discount it, yes. That is not unreasonable. That's not quite what is going on here though.
Faith is not about claims and evidence.
Faith is not about claims and evidence.
Indoctrination and ignorance?
I thought Darwin was an agnostic, which is very different from an Atheist as they are bit more open minded.
You can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist. It's not a middle ground between the two.
Agnosticisn is a position on knowledge. Agnostics say there is no way of knowing whether god exists.
Richard Dawkins is an agnostic. I'm an agnostic. Molgrips is an agnostic. Many religious people are agnostic.
Atheism is an absence of a belief in god or gods. Theism is the belief in a god or gods.
My money is on they would be, Atheists can be just as controlling as people with faith, just look at what happened to the Jews by a group of Atheists.
That was done by a group of Nazis. It was done in the name of national socialism, not atheism.
As stated earlier, many of those carrying out the acts were religious. Hitler himself was raised an a catholic and [i]Mein Kampf[/i] is full of [url= http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/23/list-of-hitler-quotes-he-was-q/ ]references to doing the Lord's work[/url].
[img] 
[/img]
Molgrips said:
I don't believe in God, because I don't feel the need to. However if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't know.
I would say: I don't believe in God, because I don't feel the need to. However if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't, because the universe looks like one without any god in it. The same as if you showed me an open empty box and asked if I believed there was a unicorn in it.
someone else asserted that the nazis were godless heathens, I asked for source they declined to answer, do you want to give it a shot RichC?just look at what happened to the Jews by a group of Atheists.
I'll take my chances if its all the same with you.
It's not all the same with me though, is it?
It's better (than it used to be)
For me and hopefully those I come in contact with ... although you lot would probably disagree with that after today ... 😀
Molgrips -
[b]I don't believe in God[/b], because I don't feel the need to. However [i]if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't know[/i].
[i]Agnostic[/i] [b]atheist[/b]
Mr Woppit -
I would say: [b]I don't believe in God[/b], because I don't feel the need to. [i]However if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't, because the universe looks like one without any god in it. The same as if you showed me an open empty box and asked if I believed there was a unicorn in it[/i].
[i]Gnostic[/i] [b]atheist[/b]
Anyone else think that Tucker needs to calm down a bit before he has a stroke.
Obviously not. Regardless, I couldn't be any calmer. But thank you for your concern, I'm touched (though not nearly often enough, but that's for another thread).
Really? Just looked that up and got this:
Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: ?????? gn?sis, knowledge) is an ancient religion that holds that the material world created by the demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced.
Que?
from Ancient Greek: ?????? gn?sis, knowledge
Ah. Ta. OK, then. 8)
As stated earlier, many of those carrying out the acts were religious. Hitler himself was raised an a catholic and Mein Kampf is full of references to doing the Lord's work.
Not sure if I can safely google for this in work, as I am going to get lots of right wing nutter websites.
It was my understanding from History/reading articles (and I am happy to be corrected) was that he was raised a Catholic, but didn't "believe" and part of his ideology/master plan was to turn Germany into secular state.
He did however maintain links with the Catholic church as they were a strong voting block which he used to get to power. Just like any *good* politician would.
I'll tell you that I don't, because the universe looks like one without any god in it
Sorry if this is a repeat, as there a lot of pages and I haven't kept up.
So why do you believe we are here? Or do you believe in an infinite universe and the implication of there being something outside of time/space and matter that occurred before the big bang.
As for your arguments including DK - you are aware that it could be working both ways, aren't you?
No it couldn't, because I don't think I'm clever. In fact, I spend most days trying to improve my knowledge and understanding. You however are trying to suggest that your are more clever than me. In respect of the Duning-Kruger effect, we are clearly defined. You might well need to get someone else to explain it you to (and I don't mean that flippantly).
Let's recap - your argument is that the current evidence means it's extremely unlikley that God exists.My argument is that you have no way of knowing how likely it is, which makes it a matter of faith BOTH WAYS.
So, according to your argument, it's a matter of faith (and a justifiable position) that (and we've done this already):
Mermaids are real
HM the Queen is a lizard
Unicorns are real
I'm a time traveler
and (wait for it!)
You owe me £100,00,000!
Yes?
And you truly can't see anything ridiculous about that? Nothing at all?
And you avoided answering my question regarding the intelligence levels of the people I listed. When you're ready.
I would say: I don't believe in God, because I don't feel the need to. However if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't, because the universe looks like one without any god in it. The same as if you showed me an open empty box and asked if I believed there was a unicorn in it.
I find that entirely reasonable, until the passive-aggressive comment about unicorns...
Faith is not about claims and evidence.Indoctrination and ignorance?
Maybe, but sometimes just desire. A lot of people simply want to believe. And I don't blame them for it tbh.
And you avoided answering my question regarding the intelligence levels of the people I listed. When you're ready.
They are/were intelligent yes. Where are you going with that if not the obvious?
Mermaids are real
HM the Queen is a lizard
Unicorns are real
I'm a time traveler
and (wait for it!)
You owe me £100,00,000!
You can believe those things if you want. If you do, and you can give me a good reason why, a reason that is worth something or does some good, then I won't argue with you.
Well, a unicorn is a fabulous imaginary creature. Just like - erm...
Sorry, I missed this.
My argument is that you have no way of knowing how likely it is,
No, I do. The fact the whole concept was dreamt up millions of years after the earth was formed by goat-herders, and (and we've been here before as well) there is not one single iota of evidence to support the notion and for that reason, being a semi-educated adult capable of logic, I can safety dismiss the notion.
You can believe those things if you want. If you do, and you can give me a good reason why, a reason that is worth something or does some good, then I won't argue with you.
Superb! The money would make all the causes I would donate to very happy indeed. How are you paying?
Just scanned through the thread, and other than someone saying that I misunderstood the laws of thermodynamics (happy for someone to explain this to me) and someone claiming macro physics is different to normal Physics, as it turns into statistics when it gets really really big, hence it can break the Law of Thermodynamics (which is a new one to me)
I can't see an answer anywhere attempting to address the question: If the universe is finite, then how can't there be a god; as the absence of one defies the second law of thermodynamics which we know to be a immutable fact.
A bigger leap of faith for me is the universe is infinite, so something existed before time, space, matter and energy.....
Mr Woppit -
I would say: I don't believe in God, because I don't feel the need to. However if you ask me if I think God exists, I'll tell you that I don't, because the universe looks like one without any god in it. The same as if you showed me an open empty box and asked if I believed there was a unicorn in it.
This presupposes that your senses and your brain tissue that exists within the universe are giving you accurate information and that you are capable of processing it accurately.
Why would that necessarily be the case?
>My argument is that you have no way of knowing how likely it is,
No, I do. The fact the whole concept was dreamt up millions of years after the earth was formed by goat-herders, and (and we've been here before as well) there is not one single iota of evidence to support the notion and for that reason, being a semi-educated adult capable of logic, I can safety dismiss the notion.
So, you still have no way of knowing how likely it is.
if the universe is finite.. the absence of [god] defies the second law of thermodynamics
Why's that then?
No, I do. The fact the whole concept was dreamt up millions of years after the earth was formed by goat-herders, and (and we've been here before as well) there is not one single iota of evidence to support the notion and for that reason, being a semi-educated adult capable of logic, I can safety dismiss the notion.
To add another thing to the discussion. The whole thing was dreamt up long before we domesticated goats, first cave drawings depicting shamans and 'god' worship start around 40,000 BC, first animal domesticated was the dog at ~20,000 years ago. These drawings are in caves all around the world from that date onwards made by numerous tribes who had *no* contact with each other, so didn't learn this from each other.
So unless you believe in coincidence on a huge scale, its pretty weird. Unless its Genetic memory........ which we know happens across the animal kingdom, so why not with us? Unless you don't believe in genetic memory either?
Superb! The money would make all the causes I would donate to very happy indeed. How are you paying?
I'm not, I don't believe I owe you anything.
It's another stupid analogy though.
This presupposes that your senses and your brain tissue that exists within the universe are giving you accurate information and that you are capable of processing it accurately.Why would that necessarily be the case?
Hypothesis, Experiment, Theory, Peer Group Review.
And with that, it being time to toddle off home, I bid thee farewell good sirs.
[img] 
[/img]
Hypothesis, Experiment, Theory, Peer Group Review.
What's any of that got to do with faith?
Plus none of that would help you in FeeFoo's situation anyway 🙂
What's any of that got to do with faith?
Nothing. It's an answer to his question about the veracity of my perception regarding the empty box.
Except it doesn't really answer it.
My point being that we are trapped by our own subjectivity.
We are essentially incapable of making an objective assessment.
We can state how things appear to us but not how they necessarily are.
(molgrips, just insist you've already paid)
This presupposes that your senses and your brain tissue that exists within the universe are giving you accurate information and that you are capable of processing it accurately.
Why would that necessarily be the case?
Quite.
Feefoo makes a good point, but not just in terms of your actual senses. I once watched two scientists argue that the same evidence meant two opposite conclusions...
I once watched two scientists argue that the same evidence meant two opposite conclusions...
they would need to be arguing the data was different and I think we all realise we can see the same things and interpret it differently as this is basically the whole thread. this is not the same as thinking our sense are flawed and we cannot be sure about them.
If the universe is finite, then how can't there be a god; as the absence of one defies the second law of thermodynamics which we know to be a immutable fact.
Can you explain this I am not sure why you think the second law of thermodynamics proves god in any way shape or form nor am I aware of any paper arguing this nor am i am aware of it being a central tenant of physics.
I am far from an expert in this subject but I dont actually know what your point is here tbh
You are remebering the difference between entropy in a gravitational field and in a non gravitational field
I really dont get what your point is here at all.
A bigger leap of faith for me is the universe is infinite, so something existed before time, space, matter and energy.....
The reality is we dont know what happened before this happened but the claim for god is more than it was the thing that existed before the big bang. We would then ask what existed before god or made god - it answers nothing and simply adds another thing that we have no evidence of as the "answer".
This presupposes that your senses and your brain tissue that exists within the universe are giving you accurate information and that you are capable of processing it accurately.
Why would that necessarily be the case?
firstly that argument cuts both ways
As i always say to this species argument pick any two objects - one you think is hard and one you think is soft
Its pretty obvious the world behaves in a predictable and reliable way and the info we get is accurate - imagine trying to ride a bike if the balance info was unreliable, the visual information was unreliable and your perception of speed terrain etc was inaccurate - we would crash a lot more than we currently do and have no idea why
its a proper clutching at straws argument
I shall beat you with them repeatedly until such time as you think that you may be perceiving them accurately - I will will go for 100% accuracy across all people as verified by injury.
How do you know you ride bikes? It could all be a false memory implanted by some machine.
🙄
are we 16 year old smoking dope and talking shit now DUDE?
PS The good news is your cars fixed but the bad news is your sense are ****ed and they still think its broken
Jesus wept
Go on, 11 more posts for 500, woops make that 10 more!
applause 😆PS The good news is your cars fixed but the bad news is your sense are **** and they still think its broken
are we 16 year old smoking dope and talking shit now DUDE?
Just pointing out how silly it is to go on about evidence and facts, when talking about religion. It's not part of that domain. At least, not for many people.
Hardly conclusive but wiki reckons
but point out hitler was probably atheist but used religion to gain favour, hmm, using religion to influence people, spooky, almost as if it was made for the job.The majority of the three million Nazi Party members continued to pay their church taxes and register as Christians.[5]
Also found [url= http://atheist-nutters.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/atheist-urban-legend-hitlers.html ]this[/url] scary fella, now if you wanna prove hitler was an atheist fair enough but using the argument "that's not how I think a Christian should behave so he couldn't have been one" is a bit lame.
Excellent thread. It's not that I don't believe in God I just find the whole concept a little far fetched, certainly the idea that there's a single consciousness (however all knowing) that dreamt this (the universe that is) all up.
The thing that always amuses me about this kind of debate is the fact that;
a) Regardless of biblical comment it's fairly well reasoned that there's no evidence for God. More so God is apparently outside of our ability of comprehension so evidence will never surface.
b) God is an entirely human creation born from eons of superstitious beliefs that have matured over time, the result being the very defendable idea we have today.
c) Religion in it's purist (original) form is a means of controlling the masses and individuals have leveraged this for both good and evil. At it's core though it's a purely human concept and one that groups have moulded to thier own ends.
So, as it's a purely human concept and one with zero evidence the likely hood that 'god' exists is highly unlikely. If anything has taken a had in moulding our universe 'it' definitely doesn't give a toss about our dirty little corner and certainly doesn't fit any discription or belief structure that exists.
Like most I find extremism in any form indefensible and most religions are very acceptable to me, regardless of the fact I think all their members are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I recon there must be a religious 'gene' that make some more likely to believe, or at the very least feel more comfortable with a belief.
I like proof and there is none so that's that as far as I'm concerned. If I do find myself a the gates of the 'Kingdom' after this life I won't be completely unprepared but mildly surprised. I'd have to have words...
If all religious knowledge were wiped off the face of the Earth and we had to start again, I think we'd probably construct a new set of stories to try to explain 'difficult' issues around creation and death. However, they would bear only passing resemblance to the current stories.If all scientific knowledge were wiped off the face of the Earth and we had to start again, we'd come up with exactly the same set of explanations, eventually, as we have now.
Mike made this point some hours ago and I was planning to make the same point but I had to go and earn a living for a few hours.
Nobody picked up on it but I think it's absolutely at the heart of the matter.
