Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi

The Running Man · 13 Apr 2010 at 17:21

FoxEye said:
Elaborate, please.

You either believe all of it or none of it. If any of it was 100% disprovable I'd have a hard time accepting anything else it said.

well, lik the entire creation story? the old testament.

its pretty well known and a pretty strong idea that many christians say dont take the old testament literally...or that it was superceded by the new testament...?

Lightnix · 13 Apr 2010 at 17:28

Nickg said:
hm but we can literally go and check for santa cant we....we can monitor the chimneys to make sure he doesnt come down and go back out again.

we cant go and check back in time if jesus was where its said he was.

and we have various sources, who conflict on other things but do tend towards Jesus' existance...

so the santa thing is just a red herring really.

so far jesus is not provable, or disprovable.

Oh no, Santa's coming down the chimney is figurative.

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 17:30

Nickg said:
well, lik the entire creation story? the old testament.

its pretty well known and a pretty strong idea that many christians say dont take the old testament literally...or that it was superceded by the new testament...?

Then those people have no basis for belief in anything the Bible says, surely...

I mean, if the word of God can't get the story of the world's beginning right, then why should you believe any of the rest of it?

Yes, it's strange that people should choose to pick some if it to believe, and not the rest. I don't understand those people either.

And no, I'm not an atheist.

izzy eckerslike · 13 Apr 2010 at 17:39

FoxEye said:
Elaborate, please.

You either believe all of it or none of it. If any of it was 100% disprovable I'd have a hard time accepting anything else it said.

modern science can discredit all the creation Myths along with all the stuff that followed it.

A scrap of wood found on a hilltop is proof that Noah's ark was true,lol
Noah's ark supposedly contained two of every living creature ( & plants?) & enough food for 40 days ?? that's totally, completely & utterly impossible even by modern standards & there's a lot less creatures now.
I don't want to hear the usual reply either because the so called 100% flood would wipe out every living thing not on this rather big boat so taking it literally doesn't apply here does it !

If you can even begin to believe all that & we're talking countless millions of creatures here then I am totally amazed

It's like saying - prove there is no Loch Ness monster
prove there are no Goblins
prove there are no Fairies
prove there are no fire breathing dragons etc because everyone believed they existed a few hundred years ago

Common sense tells us the answer

Chimerical · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:01

If God is so unprovable, than why waste time arguing about it over the Internet?

Special Olympics anyone?

The Santa/Fairy arguments are boring as well, because no-one spends hours of their lives debating it, they just accept it one way or the other so obviously the concept of God is removed from such comparisons.

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:06

izzy eckerslike said:
Noah's ark supposedly contained two of every living creature ( & plants?) & enough food for 40 days ?? that's totally, completely & utterly impossible even by modern standards & there's a lot less creatures now.

Well, it supposedly contained two of every kind of creatures around at that time.

Or maybe two of every kind of creature that was known about at that time.

Or maybe just two of each kind of creature necessary to represent its creature type/ genus.

Aren't all modern day dog species descended from wolves? So for every kind of dog, you'd just need two wolves, wouldn't you.

IDK tbh. But I don't find it as entirely impossible as you do

Lightnix · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:07

Seven of every 'clean' kind.

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:08

Oh and as for plants, seeds can lie dormant in the ground for decades. 40 days is nothing.

PermaBanned · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:12

Chimerical said:
If God is so unprovable, than why waste time arguing about it over the Internet?

Because some people are still deluded.

Chimerical · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:19

Superewza said:
Because some people are still deluded.

Good luck with wasting your life then. Also, there are far worse things that people can believe in so God is pretty harmless, even more so if He doesn't actually exist.

I don't know how Atheists can sit in-front of a computer for hours arguing about this. Please tell me how that is more productive than prayer? At least people who believe in God get some enjoyment out of it. What're you getting out of this?

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:21

Superewza said:
Because some people are still deluded.

Well, that doesn't help, exactly, does it?

If you believe so strongly that religion is a con and a swindle, what action are you taking to educate people?

Or are we just slinging insults and feeling smug?

Naffa · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:21

Chimerical said:
The Santa/Fairy arguments are boring as well, because no-one spends hours of their lives debating it, they just accept it one way or the other so obviously the concept of God is removed from such comparisons.

That's one of the weakest arguments I think I've ever heard in my life, about anything. No, the comparison is absolutely appropriate. The only difference is, God has a much larger base of believers than fairies, it makes no difference whatsoever to the evidence surrounding it or the argument itself.

Lightnix · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:23

Chimerical said:
Good luck with wasting your life then. Also, there are far worse things that people can believe in so God is pretty harmless, even more so if He doesn't actually exist.

I don't know how Atheists can sit in-front of a computer for hours arguing about this. Please tell me how that is more productive than prayer? At least people who believe in God get some enjoyment out of it. What're you getting out of this?

Uh, debates are interesting and can often be informative? Seems like a good of a reason as any. Y'know that whole intellectual pursuit thing.

ac1d1ty · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:23

Chimerical said:
Good luck with wasting your life then. Also, there are far worse things that people can believe in so God is pretty harmless, even more so if He doesn't actually exist.

I don't know how Atheists can sit in-front of a computer for hours arguing about this. Please tell me how that is more productive than prayer? At least people who believe in God get some enjoyment out of it. What're you getting out of this?

A sense of self righteousness coupled with a denial of healthy dose of irony.

As for the actual topic, just lol at hitchens and dawkins. What a bunch of asshats.

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:24

Lightnix said:
Uh, debates are interesting and can often be informative? Seems like a good of a reason as any. Y'know that whole intellectual pursuit thing.

Yeah but mostly they just become "he's real" "no he isn't" "yes he is" "nuff ugh, science disproved it"

And that's about the level that these threads operate on.

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:26

ok

so can naffa, Superewza and izzy eckerslike.

please post the sum list of their evidence that a "creator/god" does not exist - this is not the Christian god.

Then can they post all the evidence that such a being does exist.

Naffa · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:28

Do I really need to reiterate my stance, again? I've said, there's no evidence that God does not exist, but I've also said that it does not put the hypothesis of God's existence on an equal footing with the hypothesis of God's non existence. I don't say "There is no God", I say that there's no reason to believe there is.

The burden of proof does not belong to the unbeliever.

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:32

naffa said:
The burden of proof does not belong to the unbeliever.

Atheist: "I want you to stop believing in God."
Believer: "Why?"
Atheist: "What? You're supposed to do all the work, here. I'm just saying it's time to stop believing, OK? Now do it."

Chimerical · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:33

naffa said:
Do I really need to reiterate my stance, again? I've said, there's no evidence that a God does not exist, but I've also said that it does not put the hypothesis of God's existence on an equal footing with God's non existence. I don't say "There is no God", I say that there's no reason to believe there is.

Great, so you've got nothing basically. You're arguing about something that cannot be disproved/proved in any way and it doesn't really matter because you have your own view and other people are entitled to theirs.

The burden of proof does not belong to the unbeliever.

Yeah fantastic except that no-one here is asking you to believe in God. I don't care what you believe yet people like Dawkins seem to have an eternal desire to see everyone operate under the same utopian Atheist belief structure.

Christ, he's more insufferable than some of the teachers I had at my Catholic school(s).

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 18:34

FoxEye said:
Atheist: "I want you to stop believing in God."
Believer: "Why?"
Atheist: "What? You're supposed to do all the work, here. I'm just saying it's time to stop believing, OK? Now do it."

The atheist must also prove why they believe there is no god.

Remember burden of proof is on the believers.