Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi

Superewza said:
The question being asked was 'what proof is there for God not existing'.
Click to expand...

There is more proof that he does not exist, than he does.

For example.

How can i prove to you an orange exists?

How can i prove to you an overclockers forum exists?

How can i prove to you a paedophile harbouring pope exists?

And now...

How can I prove you God exists?

--

The existence of something generally comes with proof.

God does not.
 
Last edited:
wannabedamned said:
There is more proof that he does not exist, than he does.

For example.

How can i prove you to you an orange exists?

How can i prove to you an overclockers forum exists?

How can i prove to you a paedophile harbouring pope exists?

And now...

How can I prove you God exists?

--

The existence of something generally comes with proof.

God does not.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that love exists.
 
keyser87 said:
agnosticism
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

an atheist simply makes the conclusion that agnostics aren't willing to make. Considering theres no evidence then logically that means no need to believe in a God. When said evidence comes about then they'll rethink their position.

I have never heard any atheist assert 100% there is no God, several times the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God has been ridiculed and said it cannot be true based on what the teachings and text say about it but never (even by Hitchens and Dawkins) has the claim been made 100% without a shadow of a doubt there is no creator.
Click to expand...

It sounds very like you're trying to subsume many agnostics into your definition of atheism. An atheist is someone who implicitly or explicitly professes a disbelief in god (any god). At the risk of physically chastising an expired equus there is evidence for god(s), that is evidenced in the holy books and the belief of followers, the question of whether you (or indeed I) accept any of it as convincing is almost an irrelevance as to whether it exists.

But this is all rather a long way from the original topic, it may be inevitable but not necessarily helpful to discussion of that. I've got no great love for Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens as the most prominent names associated with this but at the same time I can't help feeling that some sort of investigation should occur - whether Britain is the appropriate entity to be prospectively detaining a head of state and religious icon is something I'm not certain on.
 
wannabedamned said:
There is more proof that he does not exist, than he does.

For example.

How can i prove to you an orange exists?

How can i prove to you an overclockers forum exists?

How can i prove to you a paedophile harbouring pope exists?

And now...

How can I prove you God exists?

--

The existence of something generally comes with proof.

God does not.
Click to expand...

And that must point to something shouldn't it? Like, for instance, that there isn't a God? You could show me an Orange. You could explain how this Orange came to be, what purpose it serves and what its chemical makeup is.
 
Tefal said:
that annoying git on here: "define coin" :D
Click to expand...

Oi!

Why is it that people are so scared to lump with the answer 'I don't know'? Watching people argue about the rationality of either side of a position that's ultimately undecidable makes me sad :(
 
Wicksta said:
The clue is in definition 'b' and the 'true atheism' part. :)


a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

There is no 'not 100% sure' about it I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

It's not that black and white. An agnostic atheist is surely an atheist? They don't actively believe in God, but then they don't dismiss its existence?
 
Nanoman said:
It's not that black and white. An agnostic atheist is surely an atheist? They don't actively believe in God, but then they don't dismiss its existence?
Click to expand...
Isn't that just an agnostic though? Why have the two separate words if they mean the same thing?
 
wannabedamned said:
There is more proof that he does not exist, than he does.
Click to expand...

Actually that's nonsense as the proof that one(s) does exist is the same as that one(s) doesn't, and that's diddly squat. All there is proof for is that religious texts are incorrect. Show me one piece of proof that a god doesn't exist.
 
Pudney@work said:
Actually that's nonsense as the proof that one(s) does exist is the same as that one(s) doesn't, and that's diddly squat. All there is proof for is that religious texts are incorrect. Show me one piece of proof that a god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

:( This is why the world is full of believers I get that. People believe on faith alone.

I'm just not one of them. I believe in what i can see, and what I know and understand.

I believe in Oranges, Trees, mavity(something not visable but still evident), The Moon, The Sun, Even dinosaurs, I know i cant see them, but i've seen proof they existed at one time.

God lacks any proof, anywhere. Other than some guys in the past saying he did. If jesus never existed, and his followers never wrote that book. That particular belief system would disappear entirely.
 
Wicksta said:
The clue is in definition 'b' and the 'true atheism' part. :)


a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

There is no 'not 100% sure' about it I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

'denies the existence' implies a truth is being denied, which is not the case. An assertion is being denied because of lack of evidence.

As far as atheism definition being redefined lets not forget that agnosticism was only coined in 1860 when he verbally wiped the floor with Wilberforce. Before that what were the non believers called? This is beginning to turn into an argument based on semantics, if evidence came about for an existence of a deity then there would be no more non believers, no atheists but considering there is no evidence the slightly misleading definition of 'does not believe in God' will just have to do and we'll have to be thought of as closed minded, negating the fact that no evidence has been brought forward to convince non believers.

Pudney@work said:
Actually that's nonsense as the proof that one(s) does exist is the same as that one(s) doesn't, and that's diddly squat. All there is proof for is that religious texts are incorrect. Show me one piece of proof that a god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

you'll first have to define God. What are we meant to be refuting here? Allah, Rah, Isis, Poseidon, Thor that warm fuzzy feeling you get sometimes?
 
Last edited:
From a completely non-religious point of view, the pope must answer to his actions of convincing quite possibly millions of people (particularly in African nations) to avoid using contraceptives and significantly aiding the spread of disease - most notably AIDS. Huge numbers of deaths could have been avoided if the pope were to refrain from enforcing such beliefs on easily influenced followers.

It is a serious situation.
 
keyser87 said:
An assertion is being denied because of lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

No you are making an assertion without evidence to counter an other assertion without evidence.

There is no proof either way so why make a leap of faith?

Why not just say there's no way to know.


if evidence came about for an existence of a deity then there would be no more non believers, no atheists
Click to expand...

Yes there would.

You can find people who disbelieve or believe everything and anything, there are still people who believe the world is flat and that every film/book/documentary/plane/boat and long distance train journey is a large conspiracy theory to hide this fact.

People do not act as single evidence driven homogeneous group.
 
Pudney@work said:
Actually that's nonsense as the proof that one(s) does exist is the same as that one(s) doesn't, and that's diddly squat. All there is proof for is that religious texts are incorrect. Show me one piece of proof that a god doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

While you're at it show us some that the tooth fairy doesn't either.
 
steve-h said:
While you're at it show us some that the tooth fairy doesn't either.
Click to expand...

The tooth fairy myth/lore/storey has a definite beginning and is not said to be true when it was made.

It's the difference between asking to prove harry potter doesn't exist and that a witnesses testimony is a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom