[Closed] Sometimes religion doesn't just invite ridicule, it positively begs for it

May I, while ICBA to post on a religion thread, take this opportunity to also congratulate you all with your use of the 'flat bat' "prove it by science" response, well done! Has any scientist yet disproved the existence of a God?

Oh go one, flat bat prove it exists, science offers more and more proof as to the lack of existence of a god - could you also specify which one you want proved as there are quite a few. If it all goes down I backed Thor BTW he seems the most fun. I can't prove that "slackalice" wasn't in league with hitler and Jimmie saville but hey thats not my problem.

Thanks badnewz.

Live and let live, be nice to each other and so long as your beliefs make you a better person, then they are right for you

Has any scientist yet disproved the existence of a God?

Personally I think the flying spaghetti monster makes as much sense as all the rest

I should mention I was brought up in a fairly strong catholic environment, which may colour my opinions

Anytime Spin.
Okay, this thread seems to be lurching towards vindictiveness, so I'm signing off.
Exit Bad Newz, pursued by bear.

lol badnewz & spin (apt really) we shouted have no proof and now running away

Even though Science cannot yet dissprove the existance of god, why should it? Burden of proof is upon religion.

Besides, you don't have to be an atheist to dislike the idea of god. See Prometheus Bound/Unbound. I've always liked the idea of science being a giant **** you to god.

lurching towards vindictiveness,

Should I mention the [url= http://www.awkwardmomentsbible.com ]Awkward Moments Bible[/url] ?

not mocking but again play the argument not the man here...
[img] [/img]

Is the existence of God proveable at all? If we postulate that it's not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

Meh, atheism bores me to tears. Every time I hear someone arguing the merits of atheism, it's the same damn tune. The fun arguments reside in misotheism.

[b]MIsotheism[/b] - [i] In some varieties of polytheism, it was considered possible to inflict punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them[/i]

We are almost into a Pratchett world here

lol badnewz & spin (apt really) we shouted have no proof and now running away

How does a request for book titles (my only contribution to this thread) warrant a response like that?

Got to admit, this is hilarious considering religions history.

History is history. Using history to castigate people in the present is shit. God forbid you ever meet any Germans. Or French. Or British.

Is the existence of God proveable at all? If we postulate that it's not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

molgrips - Member
Is the existence of God proveable at all? If we postulate that it's not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

If I have to prove god does not exist to a believer then why should they not prove that a god exists? Unless your point is regardless of the existence of a god of any type (or faction - could be a nasty one) I should accept that you should be able to believe in whatever you want to and pretend it exists... Problem is I do, I respect that you can make up what the ____ you want and that you can believe in it just I reserve the right to call bull shit on it, what exactly is the problem.

How does a request for book titles (my only contribution to this thread) warrant a response like that?

MIsotheism - In some varieties of polytheism, it was considered possible to inflict punishment on gods by ceasing to worship them

That's not an apt description of misotheism. It's a hatred of god, a totally insane standpoint that I am rather fond of.

Using history to castigate people in the present is shit

That's not an apt description of misotheism. It's a hatred of god, a totally insane standpoint that I am rather fond of.

Problem is I do, I respect that you can make up what the ____ you want and that you can believe in it just I reserve the right to call bull shit on it

You can absolutely call it bullshit. You can believe what you want.

But the point is that you should not think of people who do believe as stupid. Plenty of them are, but plenty are not. They see value in it that you don't. Much like cycling and expensive bikes. Or kite surfing, or Drum and Bass music, or lots of other things. This is the key point I keep banging on about.

The fun arguments reside in misotheism

Fond as I am of Japanese cuisine that would seem to be a step too far.

But the point is that you should not think of people who do believe as stupid. Plenty of them are, but plenty are not.

This is the thing that interests me most in the whole argument. Lots of the posts on here are of the 'isn't religion stupid' sort and yet far, far more intelligent people than me or thee have held belief. Why?

Stupid no, misguided yes. Live your life based on a basic committee understanding of an ancient text? Well actually I'm reconsidering stupid. Accepting on face value what is dictated to you based on what is frankly a serious interest in behaviour by dead people? What is the bible was re-written according to thatcher? Would there be as many STW devotee's? religious doctrine is based on the reading of an ancient text and imposing those values on the present. The flaws are presented in the fact that the believers can't even agree the rules amongst themselves. It's not a position of strength. In any reasonable discussion we should include all the worlds religions not just the one we woke up with, think about it's position and work from there. Just working from one version of one religion really puts you into the position of self interest and insular decision making. It'd not something to shout about.

slackalice - Member

May I, while ICBA to post on a religion thread, take this opportunity to also congratulate you all with your use of the 'flat bat' "prove it by science" response, well done! Has any scientist yet disproved the existence of a God?

Nope, but they have disproved every creation myth ever written, and much more besides. Religion, of course, responds by having what was once the unquestionable divine word of god become a metaphor, or perhaps mistranslated, or primitive man's interpretation of the unknowable wisdom of god. And yet expects the other stuff to still be taken as the unquestionable divine word of god and for the onus to be on other people to prove it wrong. Or I should say, to prove more of it wrong.

Think of militant atheism as a reaction to thousands of years of persecution by your lot. Now you know how we feel when we are stopped by religious loons in the street to be preached to.

My lot? Where have I inferred in my post as to which 'lot' I was associating myself with? I refer you to my last paragraph as to which 'lot' I prefer to be with. 😉

I can't prove that "slackalice" wasn't in league with hitler and Jimmie saville but hey thats not my problem.

😯 🙄 😀 Ha! No you can't, because I wasn't. What a strange comment.

This is my biggest problem with all formal religions - they tend to be amongst the most judgmental, intolerant collection of people you will meet.

Tell you what, I'll save you the bother of referring you also to my last paragraph and I'll write it again here, with a slight amendment:

Closed minded intolerant people are fools, [s]be they theist or atheist[/s] [b]whatever their belief's[/b]. Live and let live, be nice to each other and so long as your beliefs make you a better person, then they are right for you.

Science cannot prove a negative. you cannot prove that something does not exist you can only show that the evidence does not support this view.
In that respect there is no evidence for god and tons to refute the biblical account of how we came to be.

If we postulate that it's not proveable, then we can happily believe in it without worrying about proof.

Again you can do whatever the hell you like the issue is whether what you are doingis credible, reasonable or logical.
Its none of those is it.
I am the best rider in the world and can do 2000 m drops landing on my hands. Its not provable but lets not worry about that and just accept it is true.
Oh and I can fly I just dont bother ETC

Science cannot prove a negative. you cannot prove that something does not exist you can only show that the evidence does not support this view.

You could potentially indirectly infer the non-existence of god from other studies though.

Of course once you have looked for long enough for evidence of somethign and you find none then you tend to conclude that the thing is not there see homoeopathy, psychic powers, god, etc but it is not "proof".

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Science is clearly on the side of no god, no soul, etc

Of course once you have looked for long enough for evidence of somethign and you find none then you tend to conclude that the thing is not there see homoeopathy, psychic powers, god, etc but it is not "proof".

You are getting a little mixed up here.

We have proof that homeopathy doesn't work beyond being a placebo because tests were unable to reject the null hypothesis.

That is proof that it is no better than a control or placebo. The issue with being able to prove/disprove god is simply one of study design.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Proof of absence however, is proof.

Live your life based on a basic committee understanding of an ancient text?

Or alternatively, incorporate the good bits into your life. Not so stupid perhaps? One of the main points is be nice to each other. I quite like that, you might want to try it some time 😉

I am the best rider in the world and can do 2000 m drops landing on my hands. Its not provable but lets not worry about that and just accept it is true.
Oh and I can fly I just dont bother ETC

Very very facetious, and entirely unhelpful. I'll give you some better examples:

I believe I am a good person
I believe others can love me
I believe I should help other people even when it doens't benefit me
I belive the environment can be saved
I believe it is wrong to eat meat
I believe humans can be saved from themselves

And so on. None of that is proveable, but some of might be worth believing in no?

molgrips - Member

Or alternatively, incorporate the good bits into your life.

At what point, when you're incorporating the good bits into your life, are you no longer actually following the religion you're incorporating bits from?

TBH this is always the bit I thought should provide the greatest challenge for faith; practically every of faith disregards parts of their religion. But at that point, you're just doing things because you want to, like everyone else, you're not really following the faith.

It's like saying you're a triathlete but only ever going swimming. Nothing wrong with just going swimming, but a triathlon has running and cycling in it usually. Once you disregard the running because it's archaic and outdated and you avoid the cycling because you just don't really like cycling, you're just a fellow swimmer.

And of your list of good things, people do all of that and more without any reference to religion- we're not "incorporating the good bits", because they don't belong to faith, they belong to people. And we don't need any more reason for going swimming than that we like it

(this metaphor would have totally worked with cycling, instead of swimming. But no bugger on here rides bikes)

At what point, when you're incorporating the good bits into your life, are you no longer actually following the religion you're incorporating bits from?

I dunno. What is the link between the Bible and Christianity? How is Christianity defined?

But at that point, you're just doing things because you want to, like everyone else, you're not really following the faith

I don't think so. Christianity is Christ's teachings, is it not? The Bible is four different fourth or fifth hand reports of those teachings, and a load of stuff that was written by scholars way before he was born.

So there's clearly wiggle room, isn't there?

It's like saying you're a triathlete but only ever going swimming.

No, because Triathlon has a clear definition. Christianity does not. Peopel didn't spend 2000 years arguing over what kind of running, swimming and biking we should do. Why did they argue? Because it's not clearly defined.

@ Molly all of that is fine as long as you dont claim it was handed down to you be a deity and it is universal truth that will save your soul

FWIW I do get your point now, apologies.

You are getting a little mixed up here.

We have proof that homeopathy doesn't work beyond being a placebo because tests were unable to reject the null hypothesis.

Proof of absence however, is proof.

For example we took a while to find the Higgs Boson. according to you each failure was a proof* it did not exist till I assume we proved*it did exist.

They knew roughly why there was no evidence for what they were looking for, that simply can't be done with homeopathy. And yes, you could **** around with the stats - that's a little disingenuous though.

We cannot cure all cancers this does not prove cancer cannot be cured it may just be that we cannot do it currently.

Theoretically, we will come to a point where we are very very certain of being able to/or not being able to cure cancer though. Saying that tiny little bit of uncertainty somehow means that we should still believe in fairies or whatever strikes me as a little bit postmodernist.

I was being a smart arse actually based on when I used to teach stats at uni but yes I get your broad point.

The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference. In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fisher, a null hypothesis is potentially rejected or disproved on the basis of data that is significant under its assumption, but the null hypothesis is never accepted or proved. In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis, and the two hypotheses are distinguished on the basis of data, with certain error rates.

I assume a christian could "explain" why we cannot find god as well. You never answered the point re contradiction how the proven to not be a thing became a proven to be a thing when we found it. I think it does highlight why absence of proof is not proof of absence.

My lot? Where have I inferred in my post as to which 'lot' I was associating myself with?

This is sadly par for the course on these threads. When you state an opinion that shows interest in or sympathy for some aspect of religious belief some posters extrapolate wildly and assume you are a believer yourself. As Aristotle said 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.'

but the null hypothesis is never accepted or proved.

Sure...the null hypothesis cannot be proven true, it can however be proven false....theoretically though.... again....statistics can muddy this I guess. 🙂

I guess the issue with the word "proven" is that nothing in statistics is ever 100 percent certain.

I assume a christian could "explain" why we cannot find god as well.

Finished my tea, back on the block.

The Bible puts great emphasis on the idea of a hidden God.

Theologians interested in moral issues have said that if God were unhidden/obvious, human beings would of course choose the good, rather than evil or indifference. So there would be no room for freedom of choice between good or evil, limiting character development.

In terms of the proof argument, the popularity of the New Atheist argument largely hinges on the fact that we live in a post-Enlightenment culture, where science and philosophical Positivism dominate. But many scientists would admit that science can only describe the universe, but is limited in terms of explaining the whys. Why is there something rather than nothing being my particular favourite.

Theologians interested in moral issues have said that if God were unhidden/obvious, human beings would of course choose the good, rather than evil or indifference. So there would be no room for freedom of choice between good or evil, limiting character development.

The idea of freedom of choice is hilarious. Clearly not the reason why god chose to hide himself.

The idea of freedom of choice is hilarious in of itself.

Please explain.

That would take me writing at least a 10,000 word review of current neuroscience literature.

So no.

If there is a true god how come there are so many and they are contradictory to each other ?

I always wondered why Mormons are right or Shia Muslims or Hindus, etc

Molly all of that is fine as long as you dont claim it was handed down to you be a deity and it is universal truth that will save your soul

You can claim that you *believe* it, yes. Nothing wrong with that.

I assume a christian could "explain" why we cannot find god as well.

Why would you assume that? Most I know don't get too into the details, as the details aren't the point. You know what 'ineffable' means don't you?

I believe I am a good person
I believe others can love me
I believe I should help other people even when it doens't benefit me
I belive the environment can be saved
I believe it is wrong to eat meat
I believe humans can be saved from themselves

By all means be excellent to one another, but it has no bearing on believing the unprovable.

The real issue I have is people who DO believe a collective unprovable using it as a reason to feel superior and discriminate against people who don't subscribe to their particular unprovable. FWIW, that would apply to Atheists to, except the only place they demonstrate this behaviour is in literature, lectures and Internet forums, pretty much...

That would take me writing at least a 10,000 word review of current neuroscience literature.

You could simply list some of the authors on this subject, I'd be happy with that.