But I believe in the Tooth Fairy... why are you so closed minded?
Please respect my beliefs.
Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi
- Thread starter keyser87
- Start date
But I believe in the Tooth Fairy... why are you so closed minded?
Please respect my beliefs.
Yes, but can you prove it isn't real?
You cannot prove, or provide any evidence for there being a god, which is proof enough for me, that there isn't one. Proving a negative is often impossible, and proof that is doesn't exist is the lack of any proof that it does.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
It doesn't need proof to a ascertain the existence of god or not, it's common sense & it beggars belief that centuries of brain washing & fear still has a hold on millions of otherwise sane people.
I am going to have to disagree with you here. While some blame is to lie with some Catholic Bishops in Africa saying condoms cannot stop aids as the virus is small enough to pass through it you cannot blame the Catholic message. If such followers were so easily influenced why is it they only follow half of the catholic message (the no contraception bit) and completly ignore the rest of it (the "don't have sex with anyone other than your spouse" bit)? If said people followed the Catholic churches advice the spread of aids and other sexually transmitted diseases would be massively reduced. So the advice is sound but the people only choose to follow half of it.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
Maybe if the 19th/20th century Catholic missionaries had not brainwahed & beaten them into submission to believe in Christian Mythology they would have had freedom to choose their own beliefs
Completely immaterial to the point in question. You cannot blame the Catholic church as their message is pretty damn effective at stopping the spread of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV. However for some unknown reason the people decide that the "no condoms" bit is important and using one will send them to hell, while the "don't have sex with prostitutes" isn't. Go figure.
Why would I need to do that?
My issue is with the claim that there is more evidence that god(s) does not exist. There is no evidence either way of any form of deity that exists outside the physical world.
Please note, my issue with this statement has nothing to do with my own conclusions to the debate. My issue is that I don't like people citing things as fact when they're not.
Seriously? No, really, seriously? Can you not see the irony here? It's jumping up and down and screaming "Look at me, look at me, I'm irony!"
I think there is some confusion here between antitheism, atheism and agnosticism.
An antitheist is anti-religion/deity - I would say Dawkins falls into this catagory.
An athiest simply does not belive in any god/religion, and has no real opinion on the matter, it's a moot subject.
An agnostic is sitting on the fence but wont really buy into the god thing, but also wont rule out 'something spiritual'.
An antitheist is anti-religion/deity - I would say Dawkins falls into this catagory.
An athiest simply does not belive in any god/religion, and has no real opinion on the matter, it's a moot subject.
An agnostic is sitting on the fence but wont really buy into the god thing, but also wont rule out 'something spiritual'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
It's a fact that you can prove the existence of things that exist.
Awesome. What's the point and how does it relate to there being more proof that god(s) do not exist than the opposite?
All I want is one piece of proof (as logically that would be more as there is pretty much zero proof for the opposite) that god(s) do not exist. That's quantifiable proof. Which is reasonable for a scientific mindset.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Surely the proof that God does not exist is in the fact you can prove the existence of anything that does...
I'm starting to go crosseyed...
People believe in aliens because they believe the odds of life not existing on other planets is unfeasible when you consider the scale of the universe and planets in it.
For god to exist we need to start thinking about an entire new plane of existance outside our own, one where an entity can at will change things with in our existance. A plane of existance that we're supposed to enter upon death and live an afterlife. It's fairytales
It is a fairytale i would love to believe in, If God poked his head out of his dimension and said "OI, IM REAL" I would be very happy!
I'm starting to go crosseyed...
People believe in aliens because they believe the odds of life not existing on other planets is unfeasible when you consider the scale of the universe and planets in it.
For god to exist we need to start thinking about an entire new plane of existance outside our own, one where an entity can at will change things with in our existance. A plane of existance that we're supposed to enter upon death and live an afterlife. It's fairytales
It is a fairytale i would love to believe in, If God poked his head out of his dimension and said "OI, IM REAL" I would be very happy!
Last edited:
Give me a break.You really think their main motivation for this is publicity? Give. Me. A. Break. It may seem unbelievable to you, but the fact there's a leader, not only of a religion, but of a state and a government as well, offering safe haven to wanted felons, that covered up one of the largest scandals of child torture and rape is enough motivation for any to make a stand. This isn't being done for publicity.
I can't believe you'd deem prosecution against this vile primate 'immature'... Unbelievable.
Do you think they'd have any interest if it wasn't about the pope?
It's obvious that they're only doing it because of their hatred of religion.
Now whilst I think the pope should be arrested and tried for the cover up, it's so painfully obvious that Dawkins and Hitchens are only interested because of its relation to religion.
That's exactly why they're immature.
Umm, I'm sorry, I've tried to stay out of the massive ****storm that this debate expectedly turned into but when I read that I couldn't help myself. For the umpteenth time, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. If you have no evidence to back a conclusion up then you cannot make a claim; that is the basis of empirical analysis. First comes evidence, and from that a conclusion and not the other way round.
True. But to presume we as a race can already prove the existence of anything and everything is jumping the gun a tad. Therefore it is only logical to assume there are things that do exist, that we are not aware of and do not have the scientific knowledge to prove. It's like asking Newton to prove quantum physics or to split the atom.
Therefore as our knowledge is not complete and all encompassing lack of proof does not equal lack of existence.
Ultimately my issue was that you said more when the sum total of proof for either stance is zero.
No person of science can state 'there is no god', due to the lack of (as mentioned) specific proof to the contrary.
That said, the very same reasoning would suggest that the chance of god/gods/whatever existing is so insignificant, that it simply does not warrant any further consideration.
That said, the very same reasoning would suggest that the chance of god/gods/whatever existing is so insignificant, that it simply does not warrant any further consideration.
Precisely, it's a moot point worthy of interesting discussion rather than an infantile flame war and attempt by people to divide everyone into one group or the other in a kind of cave man "if you're not with me, you're against me" mindset because it simply isn't as simple as that.
The 'well nobody only follows half it' argument isn't very potent; I do not know a single Roman Catholic who follows absolutely everything to the letter - far from it. Even the priesthood do a few things that goes against their faith every now and then - my local Roman Catholic priest had fish and chips today at work. The sad fact of the matter is, many Africans do choose not to use contraceptives because their preacher told them not to - but many of them still commit adultery. Just the way it is. It's exactly like you said - people will only follow half the rules. I'd imagine if the pope didn't tow the official line of avoiding contraceptives, a lot of those committing adultery would start wrapping up a little more often amidst all the desperate contraceptive and sexual awareness campaigns that are failing in many sub-Saharan nations due in large part to the words of the clergy.
On another subject, I have personal beef with the Roman Catholic church myself (my father and his brother were abused as children by priests at the Derry diocese) but I'd rather aim my cannons at the heart of the Vatican. They are the ones allowing and covering up the mess. I'm sure there are many well-meaning and truly good people within the clergy, but as far as I'm concerned, they're just unfortunate members of a paedophile cadre.
Last edited:
Theres an invisible dragon sitting behind you. If you don't accept him as your Savior he'll pee on you while you sleep, unfortunately you won't feel him doing this and by morning when you wake up it will have soaked into your skin leaving no trace.
Prove me wrong.
God is simply another thing man has made up, considering there is no evidence for his existence why would you need evidence for his non existence? There is nothing to disprove apart from someone saying "well there is" ....well so what?
Does belief in such an unknown warrant tax exempt status for those who choose to spread these myths? Does it warrant them being above the law when it comes to cases like these?
What do you mean there is no proof either way? The non religious sides proof is where is the believers sides proof? Considering there is no proof doesn't the ball fall in the non believers court? We don't say 'there is no way to know so why bother' because time and time again belief in Gods have proven to be harmful, while the majority in modern times are moderates and keep their faith to themselves there are those who wish to fly planes into buildings, kill girls for learning and implement a dark age style of law. Hence why an active effort is made for people to justify their beliefs, their tax free status, their immunity from the law and criticism.
As far as when actual evidence which is clearly demonstrable comes about them the majority of atheists will have no choice to believe but until then why would they? Yes there would be a few unwilling to but these are fringe conspiracy theorist like the 9/11 truthers or the guys who go to bed at night fearing the illuminati. No one takes them seriously. The main point here is when clear evidence comes about then that will be the time to believe, doing it on a whim is just well pointless, what if your praying to the wrong God your just making him angrier and angrier - Homer Simpson.