Poll: Who believes in God?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
It's no different.
arhghghghghghghghghg arhghghghghghghg arghghhghbghgh dear lord
Are you having a fit, do you want me to get help or did an explanation of how an atheist perceives the world troubling you.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm not religious, never have been and probably never will be but I'd defend the right of the religious to believe whatever they want (so long as it is not directly hurting another) so I'll play along here.
You are claiming to hold a logical position but then when logical flaws (or gaps to be kinder) are pointed out i.e. that you haven't disproved the evidence for a god you then demand that other people show you proof to satisfy you. You might even say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but that is a tenet of science rather than faith which requires no evidence, merely belief.
Of course you will be waiting a long time, it is almost purely a rhetorical question, I can no more prove there is a god (even if I should care to try) than you can disprove the existence of a god. You can probably disprove parts, you might even be able to disprove or discredit whole religions but that doesn't mean that there is not a god of some description.
arhghghghghghghghghg arhghghghghghghg arghghhghbghgh dear lord
That is what everyone who believes in god says. Atheism is not a belief that god doesn't exist, we just dont start a new religion that say oh god does not exist, i.e. The non god religion.
Atheism is starting with a clean slate and asking something to be proven by logic, evidence i.e by the tool of science, god just happen to be on the agenda of being ilogical and unprovable, so we swept it aside and continued to try and answer rthe bigger questions.
You can't just make up a definition because it suits your agenda or if you do then don't be surprised that many won't agree with it. Atheism is stating that a god doesn't exist either explicitly or implicitly and as has been said multiple times science is not the tool for the job of finding god (should such a task even be possible), it was never designed to do so since it is a tool for creating accurate predictions based on observed evidence. You can put your faith in science to find god if you wish but please be under no illusions about the chances of success - your faith in science for the task is merely that, faith and no better or worse than the faith of a religious adherent.
the individual obviously
shows how much you know then. Typical athiest discrediting texts without having even read them properly.
No, the New Covenent or Law replaces the old. If you like what was "just" changed. Hence why the old things in the old testement seem unjust to us.
Science is tiny headroom into the notion of true existence.
If that's your definition of atheism then the worlds most prominent atheist is not an atheist.
I've found most passionate atheists use this definition:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm
The atheist is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds.... [E]very man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.
A fit, much like yourself
The problem is science can't even begin to attempt to answer such huge questions, I don't know why some atheists think they can. My pet hate is those who think certain theories disprove god... nooooo!
What huge questions?
God does not require disproving, since there is no evidence to suggest he exists in the first place.
I do hold a logical position, where is there a flaw in any logic that says i should prove something before i try and disprove it. If you ask me to disprove the earth is round i will struggle, you ask me to disprove something that can not be proven in the first place, its virtually impossible, i have nothing to disprove? What evidence i do have i.e. the bible, has been disproven. Your inferring existence from lack of evidence against, not evidence for.
You must see that it a very stupid stand point to base the existence of god on any of the written text on earth, rather than signs and demonstration from such a person.
Im doing nothing of the such, im stating that atheism is the view point of a person who believe in the rational exercise of gathering evidence, and testing it. If that happens to come under the category of science then so be it.
It just also happens to be that atheist denounce god on that basis, then fine.
Imo atheist is a label stamped onto anyone who has weighed up the evidence and said that its a ridiculous misconception, were not a bunch of people all getting into groups and saying down with the believes, burn the christian, jews, etc etc, we just unfortunately get snowballed by religious stupidity because it conflicts with rational daily activities.
Indeed, but one could argue that the existance of anything at all is evidence of some form of unknown higher power.
If you believe in god then worship is a rational daily activity.
Thats a good point but then you have a paradox, which is not good. The existence of god would denote a creator, but then we go round in circles.
I prefer to thinkthat no one thing can ever hold the power to anything, its an unanswerable question and one that wil most likely never be answered, but for the safety of people around the world it is easier to search for that answer than to assume it answered by faith.
Wow your very good an ignoring my whole post and picking apart the tiny bits that matter not, to make you sound like your argueing rather than just chatting ****
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, I know you've had the debate with Dolph certainly. Atheists tend to define their (lack of) belief pretty broadly for much the same reason that Christians (or any other group) do, they want to claim greater numbers support their viewpoint. Most traditional definitions of atheism stem from either an explicit or implicit denial or disbelief in a god or gods, that might not fit with what modern atheists wish to characterise themselves as but it is the definition I've always understood to be useful and used widely.
One could argue that a god can do anything and break any rules that we consider logical. Who is to say a god can't be around forever and not need an explanation? Just food for thought
What does "prove him" mean? Do you mean prove he exists? I thought you were on the other side of the argument.
The argument was not about what I believe, it was about people trying to declare God doesn't exist. The onus is on those who claim no God exists to substantiate their claim, which they can't.
If you want evidence for my own beliefs you won't get it, because I have none that I could readily show you.
Not everything requires proof to be of use. Only fools would claim so.
As I said above, not everything requires proof to be of value. Just like the atheist's claim that there is no God.
Your logic so far has been flawed, and several others have pointed this out too. You won't get any evidence which clearly shows I'm right, because you're the kind of person who rejects that which you cannot explain out of hand as an anomaly.
The best I can offer you currently is what is known as the Moral Law. which is written about by Francis Collins here:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2192678&page=1
Correct, because neither will be able to demonstrate his view effectively. You demand evidence off me, I demand the same off you. You can call me as illogical as you want, but until you stop asserting that your view is somehow more valid you'll be fighting a losing battle.
Wrong. Again. That's exaclty what atheism is. This is getting tiresome now...
No it isn't. And science doesn't hold a view on the existence of God. The default position is one of uncertainty. You keep missing this.
You're really going to have to stop saying this, or at least clarify what you mean by this. You can't prove an object. I can't "disprove a football".
No-one's doing anything of the sort, or claiming to. But what you're claiming is that absence of evidence = evidence of absence which is a big no-no in science.
And "you're" has an apostrophe in it.
Wrong. Again. That doesn't just come under the category of science, it IS science. Atheism on the other hand is faith in there being no God.
Fine yes. Logical: no.
Slow down, I can't understand what that says.
I dont understand, lack of belief is not a broad term, you either do or dont.
I think what your saying is that people who chose to study the evidence and make a sensible conclusion are tarred with the same brush as those who blinded just say i don't believe.