Just how offensive do you think that comment is to people without the same void of faith as you?

I reckon you just outed yourself old chap. From potential best man material to righteous indignation in a week stretches the believability a little.

Good effort though.

Any atheist is perfectly happy to accept that whatever proposition regarding whatever subject is raised is true. Or at least , so highly probable that it is as near to the actuality as makes no difference.

All you have to do, is provide the evidence.

Otherwise, you’ve opened your mind so far that your brains have fallen out.

A common problem amongst theists, in my experience.

IanMunro – Member
But in order to know what that is like and what it means, you’d have to believe, and in order to believe you’d have to have an open mind, something which clearly you are demonstrating that you lack.

I’m not entirely convinced by the middle part of your point though ‘Belief requires an open mind’, as there do appear to be an awful lot of close minded individuals of faith.

Thats a good point Ian, there are a lot of closed minds out there, especially within Religion, I don’t deny that!

I should have said:

But in order to know what that is like and what it means, you’d have to explore Faith, and in order to have do that you’d have to have an open mind, something which clearly you are demonstrating that you lack.

That would have been truer to the point I was trying to make.

I don’t see what’s so complicated about “knowing” what faith means.

The religious are telling us what it means all the time, especially when they use it as an argument of last resort.

It’s the trust in the existence of something for which no evidence can be presented. It is irrational and therefore requires irrational belief, ie: faith.

Not righteous indignation Torminalis, what he said was intentionally offensive and written just to get a reaction. He’s not going to get anymore of a reaction.

You originally posted:

However, in times of great strain or desperation, which in my life there have been a few, I do pray, to whom I don’t know, but it does give me comfort. And that to me is the basis of a Faith.

It may very well be comforting, but that doesn’t make it true.

Any atheist is perfectly happy to accept that whatever proposition regarding whatever subject is raised is true. Or at least , so highly probable that it is as near to the actuality as makes no difference.
All you have to do, is provide the evidence.

wouldn’t that be an agnostic, MrW ?
I thought atheists believed specifically that that there is/are no god

scaredypants, the definitions are:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

compared to:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

scaredypants – Member

wouldn’t that be an agnostic, MrW ?
I thought atheists believed specifically that that there is/are no god

No. Atheism is accepting that the probability that there is a god is so infinitely small (due to complete lack of evidence) that it is as near to saying “there is no god” as makes no difference, so is perfectly happy to conclude that there is no god.

The last faint strand of hope that a theist has, is that some day, evidence may be presented to support the existence of a god. Were this to happen, and the evidence is peer group reviewed and declared solid enough to be a theory, then atheism would say that it is probable that there is a god.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath…

In the meantime, like MrNutt, there is always the fallback position of irrational belief.

… and here we see the pietic MrNutt hijacking a conversation to trump my reply and refer to a previous comment of mine using obliquity as a dishonest tactic.

And there he was, telling us that he wasn’t going to “react” anymore.

Hypocrite. But I forgive you…

I take it back. I must have been hallucinating.

god forgive me, then.

Mr Woppit & Junkyard, do you ever fear you may just be invoking the PaddedFred Obi Wan paradigm?

Yes it is a great system – be converted by them and you are a win for them – disagree with them and you persecute them which reinforces their faith. Whatever happens in any debate it reinforces their faith.
PS I felt a great disturbance in the force when you used my name and Woppits in the same sentence I shall bow out as do not wish to beviewed in the same light as he is on these type of threads.

It’s the trust in the existence of something for which no evidence can be presented. It is irrational and therefore requires irrational belief, ie: faith.

But the nature of this evidence is questionable isn’t it. Folks might say they see evidence in the beauty of a sunset, so they believe God exists, you might so say you see the evidence of gravity in the way stuff seems to fall when you drop it. Or evidence of hatred or ESP or electrons, as i said before, by the effect they have on the world

Sunset: That is correlation between two seperate things, one of which is an observable occurrence, the other an unproveable concept. There is no demonstrative connectivity between the appearance of the sunset, and an unproved causation.

Gravity is an observable and verifiable phenomenon which works in a specific causal way, universally. To believe (again, without evidence) that some form of superior invisible being is moving things around, is analogous to saying that trees shake becouse god is moving them, rather than that the wind is blowing…

Any atheist is perfectly happy to accept that whatever proposition regarding whatever subject is raised is true. Or at least , so highly probable that it is as near to the actuality as makes no difference.

All you have to do, is provide the evidence.

I’m not sure I agree with that. I think that you are conflating Athiest with Rationalist. Whilst there is certainly a degree of correlation between the two positions I don’t see them as being interchangeable. I think it would be safe to say that the majority of scientist are rationalist, but a significant number of those will also be thiests.

Mr Woppit what on earth is “pietic” supposed to mean?

You are only doing this to gain attention, a reaction and trying to force your views despite you clearly stating that your point of view is “no Faith and believe that others shouldn’t”.

I started this thread because I think it can be constructive, interesting and thought provoking. And it has been, disregarding your interruption.

Your presence & contribution to the proceedings is no longer welcome, clear off, start a new thread, go and seek a rise out of someone else or go out and ride your bike. Just leave this topic please.

You are demonstrating the worst traits this forum has to offer. You should be ashamed.

gonefishin, I agree. The rational interpretation of the probable result, should naturally incline towards atheism, as the probability of god’s existence is so infinitely small as to be not worth bothering with.

However, in my opinion. the scientists (few in number, much like the probability itself) who use this invisible sliver of hope to say that their faith still stands, are grasping at something so much finer than a straw that it can’t even be seen…

Athiesim is just too easy nowadays. Doesn’t require any faith anymore.

Gravity is an observable and verifiable phenomenon which works in a specific causal way, universally. To believe (again, without evidence) that some form of superior invisible being is moving things around

You are conflating the points here. I’m questioning sufficiency of evidence. You for example believe in gravity, because you see the way certain things behave. You have no evidence for it, only that it appears to be predictable and consistent with your understanding of it. However, you need to realise that it is only a theory, and you don’t actually know ‘how’ it works, only that it does. You choose to believe in it, because of what you observe.

Others may say that God behaves in a way which is consistent with their understanding of him/her/it and the too observe the effects without understanding him/her/it.

ooOOoo – Member
Athiesim is just too easy nowadays. Doesn’t require any faith anymore.

and the outfits are rubbish, the buildings dull and the songs, well don’t get me started on that!

Hello Nutt, I thought you weren’t talking to me anymore, has god been in touch?

what on earth is “pietic” supposed to mean?

The act of being pious.

your point of view is “no Faith and believe that others shouldn’t”.

News to me. You do what you like, old chap.

I started this thread because I think it can be constructive, interesting and thought provoking. And it has been, disregarding your interruption.

Well, just ignore me then. Oh, you were. Oh, you’re not. Oh.

Your presence & contribution to the proceedings is no longer welcome,

Says you. Who made YOU pope?

clear off, start a new thread, go and seek a rise out of someone else

See above.

You are demonstrating the worst traits this forum has to offer. You should be ashamed

Erm, nope. Deal with it.

Tell you what, Woppit, I will, and may my God help you if we ever do meet.

To a certain extent, I agree with you charlie. However, to assert that a seperate, superior intelligence is “moving things around”, rather than physical objects exerting forces upon each other due to their mass, still begs proof of the existence of the superior intelligence.

Also, such an “intelligence” would have to be very complicated indeed to achieve the sort of result you mention, along with everything else that it would need to control, that it could only have arisen by a process of evolution, which is about simple things evolving into complicated things.

Given that, one would next need to ask, what caused the simple thing from which this superior and complicated intelligence evolved?

“You can’t fool me, it’s turtles all the way down”…

MrNutt – Member

and may my God help you if we ever do meet.

Why’s that, then?

No, I’m not saying the higher being is moving things around. Merely illustrating that you too believe in things in which there is a lack of complete evidence and understanding. You claim that you evidence of God to believe he exists. If that is the case, others may say look around you. If it is proof you need, then that is a different issue.

Also, such an “intelligence” would have to be very complicated indeed to achieve the sort of result you mention, along with everything else that it would need to control, that it could only have arisen by a process of evolution, which is about simple things evolving into complicated things.

Now that’s quite a leap! But it does show that you believe in evolution, which again is a theory and lacks complete evidence.

Zen STW.

Those who know, do not post.
Those who post, do not know.

😉

MrNutt – Member
and may my God help you if we ever do meet.

Mr Woppit – Member
Why’s that, then?

I’d invite you to use your imagination,

but hang on, do you have one?

does such a thing actually exist?

can it be proven?

Now i like what MrNutt has said, but Mr Woppit has been fun too, but which is better? Theres only one way to find out… FIGHT

I have used my imagination. I think MrNutt is going to meet me dressed as a hyper-sexual penguin riding a theoretical unicorn, thus proving that he has a sense of humour. If THAT’S not using my imagination, I don’t know what is…

Nah, he’s just gonna pagger you…

Mr Woppit, perhaps you could tell me where the thoughts in your head come from?

what makes you who and what you are?

the character that you live, where did those traits come from?

any talents you have?

created or would you describe yourself as an evolutionary “accident” that lived?

If THAT’S not using my imagination, I don’t know what is…
You may have just been touched by His Noodly Appendage..

I have used my imagination. I think MrNutt is going to meet me dressed as a hyper-sexual penguin riding a theoretical unicorn, thus proving that he has a sense of humour. If THAT’S not using my imagination, I don’t know what is…

Yup, you certainly added those two old ideas together in an imaginative way, by adding the word ‘riding’. That was all your own. Well done!

charlie, I dispute that “things around me” is evidence of a god. I would say that it is evidence that there are “things around me” and these are things that act in observable, definable ways, all of which are interconnected and causal.

This is evidence that the “cause and effect” nature of reality is taking place, there is no evidence of an invisible agency.

I understand that Evolution is now accepted as a fact, attested to by research and observation. Much has been published. I need to read up on the evidence for this assertion, however, but do not expect to have been misled. The probability of this 😀 is slim, I would say.

I suppose the nub of the argument here is “How do I (or you) kow that anything that we experience is, in any sense, “real”.

The dreamer being the dreamed, and so on. Well, it’s a nice idea. But there’s no evidence.

MrNutt – Member

Mr Woppit, perhaps you could tell me

Well, I could, but all that information is available in depth elsewhere and applies to all of us, so do your own legwork.

I’m not going to bother explaining it to you because it would take a great deal of time and besides, you’re beginning to bore me.

The thoughts in my head come from a mixture of chemicals, and electricity going round, as proven by science.

What makes me who I am? The experiences I have had in life, through the influece of other people and events around me.

Any talents? Yes, and they became a ‘talent’ when the activity was done again, and again, and again…. until the chemicals in my brain made the actions of my body ‘stick in my memory’. I seem to have a ‘talent’ for riding a bicycle, as do most other STW’ers.

I was created through a chemical reaction, not some divine super power.

ok, just answer the latter then oh learned one:

Were you created or would you describe yourself as an evolutionary “accident” that lived?

Yep, charlie, pure coincidence. Or perhaps two photons reacting to the same stimulus in an infinite space-time curve…

so a summary of this post

1. Guys im beginning to think like this
2. Oh thats quite interesting i think like this
3. Yes i think similar
4. I dont
5. I think your and idiot and so are your views
6. oh charming
7. up yours
8. FIGHT

Not bad. Needs ketchup.

musTARD!