So then believers - I ask you for one piece of evidence that any god exists.

Coming right up!

[img] [/img]

Enough of who believes in God or not, who believes they are God?

[i]- I ask you for one piece of evidence that any god exists. I am not asking for proof - but just one tiny bit of evidence that stands up to any objective scrutiny.[/i]

What count's as objective though? I mean if God's created everything, then he's also created your objectivity.
Anyway if you want one tiny bit of evidence that God exists look at the big bang. God as a creator appears as rational as any other argument.
It all goes a bit wrong when you bring religion in though 😉

/edit Just realised that you framed the question at believers, so that rules me out.

I believe in BOD -will that do?

BOD?

Bottom Of the Day?

I am not asking for proof - but just one tiny bit of evidence that stands up to any objective scrutiny

If you have to ask that, then you don't get it 🙂

There is only one BOD and that is the true BOD
[img] [/img]

Well, I think I'll keep my Antipodean Pop Princess over your Irish Egg-chaser...

So then non-believers - I ask you for one piece of evidence that any god does [b]not[/b] exist.

How about that then? Eh?

Atheists Sir? They don't like it up 'em!

Anyway if you want one tiny bit of evidence that God exists look at the big bang

where is it ? How can a conjecture be evidence ? Also, assuming god or gods exist, why should we care ?

There is only one BOD and that is the true BOD

What flavour milkshake is he going to have today though?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I think I'll have.......

The evidence available cant, as you know, prove a non-negative, but even someone untrained in science can see that the wish-fulfillment god of all human religion doesn't exist.
A look at the world, at nature at all its levels shows that a loving, caring god is nowhere to be seen.
Everything alive suffers, weakens, dies, goes extinct, often randomly, always unfairly.
If some sort of god exists, then its a god of utter dispassionate indifference.
And if thats the case, then it might be more likely that no god exists at all.

Bod has a good line in gnomic phrases. He has only just started on the deity thing but he is getting the hang of it.

"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad."

West kipper - the theory is that those who have suffered in real life end up in eternal bliss after they die. And if you pray for something directly God is not meant to answer it directly (an idea lost on many). However he finds ways to help you in other ways. This is quite possibly indistinguishable from pure randomness; one might say that some people see the hand of God in random things that happen - one might just as easily claim they are random. Quite hard to prove either way 🙂

For example, if you are driving along and you over-cook a corner, leave the road and end up through a hedge in a field right-side up and unharmed, one person might say 'phew, that was lucky' and another might say 'thankyou God for teaching me a lesson by allowin the car to spin, but not actually letting me die'. Impossible to prove either way.

Which goes back to what I was saying on the other thread about God making perfect sense to those folk who are religious.

avdave2 - Member

Enough of who believes in God or not, who believes they are God?

molgrips, evidently...

I could be - you would never know!

the theory is that those who have suffered in real life end up in eternal bliss after they die

god I hope not that sounds even worse 🙁 - eternal bliss without challenge or learning or striving or development? Yek! Though actually, how would one tell the difference between eternal bliss and say, a whole day, or an hour or a minute ? Even hell sounds more interesting! Are we here just to stop god(s) getting bored ?

molgrips - Member

I could be - you would never know!

Bit like "being famous" - you'll still be a c*nt.

Mr Whoppit your now in an argument with someone you don't believe exists.

Woppit, I'm not a c*nt.

eternal bliss without challenge or learning or striving or development?

Bliss would be whatever you like to do. So if it's challenges you want, that's what you'd get. Innit.

So if it's challenges you want, that's what you'd get. Innit.

so you mean it would be just like life ? Could that work ?

molgrips - Member

Woppit, I'm not a c*nt.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary. What a c*nt.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary. What a c*nt.

Where've I been a c*nt? I'm just trying to get YOU to stop being a c*nt.

What is wrong with you two? Give it a rest, eh? 🙄

Why can't you look at some bottoms, and chill out a bit? Do you see me -ting people off? No. and why do you think that is?

Believe in Bottoms...

Yes, irritating, isn't it.

Woppit's the one who's trying to get the last word! And calling me a c*nt!

Anyone who says:

the theory is that those who have suffered in real life end up in eternal bliss after they die

is not only an ignorant pillock who doesn't understand what the word "theory" means but still expects to be taken seriously despite the fact that their poor grasp of a simple word undermines the whole basis of their argument, but is also a c*nt.

This "debate" between Mr Woppit and molegrips needs to be solved in a scientific manner. We need an unbiased member of the forum and some witnesses to measure both Mr Woppits and molegrips fathers to see whose is the biggest and we need to do it before one of them claims ownership of the ball and takes it home.

Do religious people believe that those of us who have suffered, listening to MrWoppit and Molgrips bickering, will go to a place of eternal happiness?....
.... if so I could be persuaded to leave all this reality and science s**t behind! 🙂

I should point out that I'm only posting on here because every time I open the tread or post a reply I get a subliminal flash of that arse.

I do understand the word theory, and my posts so far should clearly show me to be far from ignorant. I am capable of understanding and reconciling many of the widely varied points of view on the subject.. plus I like a nice intelligent discussion.

But you're just a c*nt.

PS I am PSML at all this 🙂 hopefulyl Woppit is taking it in the spirit in which it is intended..

I almost can't believe it. I spend a day and a half arguing my corner without insulting anybody. Although apparently it's too "strident" for some and then I get all sorts of unprovoked personal attack shite.

I spend half a day on here calling someone a c*nt and - not a peep.

What a bunch of - er...

"the theory is that those who have suffered in real life end up in eternal bliss after they die" is not a theory. This indicates that you don't understand the word.

What's PSML?

I think Charlie Brooker's fantastic. Unfortunately, Youtube keeps bugging out on me. I did expect the Monty Python "5 minute argument" sketch, but that's already been done.

Just briefly getting back to the thread subject - does anybody find it strange that a religion that purports to be about turning the other cheek, caring for others, forgiveness and so on has members who are quite happy to smilingly promote the idea that at some stage ("end days"), they're all going to heaven in a pie whilst the rest of us are going to die in lakes of fire and other extremely vile and nasty ways? That includes children, infirm, elderly and others less than capable of trying to help themselves?

Now, they ARE a bunch of c*nts!

Woppit, calling someone a c*nt is just silly.

You were viciously attacking someone's personal and deeply held beliefs on the other thread, which is quite unpleasant and upset a few people, incluidng barnsleymitch quite a bit.

Upsetting people = not good.

PSML means pissing myself laughing.

Remember the words of The Great Dawkins;
"Speaketh to others on the web as you would be speaketh'eth to yourself in real life"
No, he might not have actually said that... it depends on which of the translated prophets you believe. 😉

I'd have this conversation in real life.. except my body language and pleasant demeanour would diffuse any acrimony 🙂

*cough*

ou were viciously attacking someone's personal and deeply held beliefs on the other thread

At last, someone who almost agrees with me. Yes, I was attacking the belief. "Viciously" is a subjective interpretation not shared by all who took part. I didn't attack any one individual personally. The only problem that appears to exist in some people's minds is that religion is a "special case" somehow exempt from the type of argument routinely used when discussing anything else - football, the weather, pop groups. I just don't see it and, despite asking the question "why is this" several times, got no explanation from those who professed to be upset about it.

Anyway - my atheism got attacked even more viciously in return but you didn't hear ME complaining about it. What is wrong with these people?

As for barneslymitch - despite at least two attempts to "leave (him) the **** alone", as he put it, he kept coming back for more. Is that MY fault?

Honestly, what a crock.

Religion is always a deeply held belief, and these things are always personal. Personal means that if you attack it the person can feel hurt.

If you want to have a religious discussion without a load of people getting upset about it, you have to be very careful, considerate and tactful about it. That's not how you came over, unfortunately.

It's all about how you present yourself to other humans, and yes, it is a minefield. But there you go - that's people for you 🙂

Strikes me a deeply held belief isn't much of a creature if it causes the holder to fall apart at the first sign of deeply-held objection - to which I am entitled. People who believe this stuff really can't expect special treatment especially as their beliefs are demonstrably likely to promote disgust in others. "End days" sadism fantasies, suicide bombings and other less violent, but objectionable habits.

Religion has had it's own way for centuries - now that there's a groundswell of objection to it, it's followers get all offended and uptight about it, claiming hurt and offense and expecting "special" treatment (and priveleged taxes).

Well O.K. - go ahead and be hurt and offended. Have a go at my atheism why don't you. It's big enough to take it.

If you want to have a religious discussion without a load of people getting upset about it, you have to be very careful, considerate and tactful about it.

I can't see why religion is any more delicate than your world-flatness belief, dress sense or political opinions

Thankyou. My point.

People who believe this stuff really can't expect special treatment

It's got nothing to do with speical treatment!

Mate, it's all about how you present yourself and your arguments. It's not special treatment. I [b]always[/b] try and be nice and provoke thoughtful debate without insulting. And if I offend someone, I apologise and try to make everyone happy again.

Confrontation is rarely productive in an intellectual debate, you have to understand that.

I always try and be nice and provoke thoughtful debate without insulting.

Oh, really?

Plus, you are allowed to disagree with people but you are not allowed to upset them by trying to ram your views down their throat like you do on here.

"Allowed" - "ram" - long after I'd ceased to argue and even left the discussion.

Yeah, I always try. Sometimes I fail, but I always try.

I accept your endgame.

Now I see that barnsleymitch has resurfaced elsewhere and, in his own blemishless and of course considerably holy way, is trying to provoke another muscular discussion with me.

Ciao, ciao.

Confrontation is rarely productive in an intellectual debate, you have to understand that.

neither acquiescence

Food for thought:

98 out of the last 100 Nobel Prize Winners in physics have been athiests. 1 christian and 1 muslim.

Speaks volumes.

Speaks volumes.

Yep, it says that apparently, you can a Christian or Muslim and still win the Nobel Prize in physics.

What about Hindus ? ..........why can't you be Hindu and win the Nobel Prize in physic ?

It's really gonna put India at a disadvantage in it's quest to become a future superpower 😕

Speaks volumes.

that creationists think they already know how the universe works so they don't need to investigate it further?

Speaks volumes

That you should check facts before you accept them maybe ?

These people don't sound like very committed "atheists" :

Albert Einstein Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant
Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic
Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran
Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist
Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)
Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist
William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican
Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian
Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican
Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish
Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim
Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker

Speaks volumes

That you should check facts before you accept them maybe ?

Oof.

I was never that good at science. lol.

That you should check facts before you accept them maybe ?

Are the facts from here?

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

Not really objective. Nor the last 100 either is it?

It did look like a good forum 'smack down' though 🙂

Interesting list, ernie. Doesn't prove anything very much, other than the belief system they were all raised in. It doesn't give any indication at all as to whether they were actual practicing believers. I was baptised CofE, don't mean I go to church or even have any belief. As it happens I'm rather with SfB on this one. I do know quite a lot of scientists were/are believers, but just 'cos a list says something don't make it true. Not without empiracle evidence.

As it happens I'm rather with SfB on this one

Oi! don't put it down to me - I just suggested why physicists might not be given to religion - or vice versa.

Doesn't prove anything very much....

Not really, no......apart from the fact some people claim something different to what was suggested.

I have no idea what is actually correct. But then again, I couldn't give a toss who wins the Nobel Prizes. And never have done. Well not since I discovered that Peace Prize was awarded to a couple of warmongers anyway.