Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi

Lightnix · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:43

Atheism - • noun the belief that God does not exist.
Belief - • noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith.

Oxford English Dictionary.

Naffa · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:44

*Sigh*... I happen to know for a fact, that both Hitchens' and Dawkins' definition of atheism is exactly the same as mine.

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:45

Superewza said:
No, you asked 'what evidence is there for God not existing'. I provided a short summary of why don't have to have existed and explained how the idea of a higher being came about. It's an easy enough conclusion to draw for yourself.

No i asked for you a list of proof that god exists and proof that god does not.

You dodged the question by going off on a side track.

But ok, Where did subspace come from?

Where did the colliding multiverses come from?

What came before them?

And before that ?

How do you know they are not simply the mechanism that god used to produce the universe?

And so on.

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:46

naffa said:
*Sigh*... I happen to know for a fact, that both Hitchens' and Dawkins' definition of atheism is exactly the same as mine.

a)Congrats you can all go buy a dictionary or accept that you're simply believers.

b)Know for a fact eh?

So you have asked him personally and in detail explained your definition?

Or do you simply relive he would agree?

Chimerical · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:46

naffa said:
Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me. Shall I let Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling, Harris, Dennett, Franklin, Jefferson, Einstein and Hawking know, or would you like to?

Weird how you mention Hitchens in the same sentence as someone like Einstein. I guess all you have to do is write for Vanity Fair and be a pro-war George W. Bush lover and you're way up there.

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:47

Superewza said:
... the universe was 'created' in the sense that we know and love today by two planes of existence, or multiverses, clashing and ripping open subspace to trigger the 'Big Bang' (which is actually a phrase coined by Christianity, it's more of a ripping in subspace) which forced the universe, which at the time contained everything in an infinitesimally small space governed by a single, perfect, force. Expansion then began and ...

I liked science better when it was based around observations and measurements.

What are we going to call these new multiverses that you've ... (cough) ... discovered?

Naffa · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:48

Tefal said:
a)Congrats you can all go buy a dictionary or accept that you're simply believers.

b)Know for a fact eh?

So you have asked him personally and in detail explained your definition?

Or do you simply relive he would agree?

Put it this way, I've seen the words come out of each of their mouths several times, I've read the written accounts of both of their beliefs in both the God Delusion, and God is Not Great. I feel I can go so far as to say that they wouldn't have published such a thing as their opinion, if it wasn't their opinion.

PermaBanned · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:50

Tefal said:
No i asked for you a list of proof that god exists and proof that god does not.

You dodged the question by going off on a side track.

But ok, Where did subspace come from?

Where did the colliding multiverses come from?

What came before them?

And before that ?

How do you know they are not simply the mechanism that god used to produce the universe?

And so on.

As i said, it's an impossible concept for you to grasp but time is infinite.

If God created the universe then who created God? Yes, i will stoop that low. It's essentially the same question you asked.

Naffa · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:50

Chimerical said:
Weird how you mention Hitchens in the same sentence as someone like Einstein. I guess all you have to do is write for Vanity Fair and be a pro-war George W. Bush lover and you're way up there.

Wow...

I'm really not fussed about trying to change your mind, but I do take objection to the huge misconceptions you have about the man. I feel a bit miffed that you're so ready to say such things, when you clearly haven't read anything that he's written, or listened to anything that he's said.

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:53

Superewza said:
As i said, it's an impossible concept for you to grasp but time is infinite.

If God created the universe then who created God? Yes, i will stoop that low. It's essentially the same question you asked.

well done you're finally getting my point.

Although when did time become infinite last time i looked at this kind of theoretical physics it was believed that before the "big bang" there technically was not "time" as we understand it, but then then the guy started referring to a huge amount of maths to back it up and i got bored.

But no please answer the initial question and list all the proof for and against a god.

DAnDan · 13 Apr 2010 at 19:56

Tefal said:
But no please answer the initial question and list all the proof for and against a god.

There is no evidence for a god to exist, therefore making it a theory, which is based on no proof/evidence/anything. This theory therefore holds as much credibility as the giant, purple, invisible, brain-wave consuming, elephant that lives on the top of your left ear.

A theory with no evidence to support its beliefs, is basically just a story.

FoxEye · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:02

So tell me honestly that the theory of evolution has no holes. No gaps that science has been unable to fill in.

All evolutionary steps documented and observed.

Naffa · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:03

Please tell me you're not being serious. :rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm hearing the God of the gaps argument being brought out, again. Of course we don't know every single detail about evolution, all we know is that it happened. Even today, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould have huge disagreements about specifics of evolution.

Nanoman · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:03

Tefal said:
But no please answer the initial question and list all the proof for and against a god.

For:
There are tons of ancient transcripts of encounters with God.

Against:
Presence of God can't?/hasn't been scientifically tested in a lab.

:confused:

Superewza said:
As i said, it's an impossible concept for you to grasp but time is infinite.

Is it though? In the observable universe it is arguably not as everything in this universe will end. In a hyperspace (if it does exist) then time maybe inifinte or even non existant.

DAnDan · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:03

FoxEye said:
So tell me honestly that the theory of evolution has no holes. No gaps that science has been unable to fill in.

All evolutionary steps documented and observed.

I'm sure it does have gaps, many of which have recently been found, after being predicted, correctly.

The point is though that there IS evidence for it, lots of it. This theory of a god (in the sense of a bearded-man in the sky creating the world etc) has none.

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:03

DAnDan said:
There is no evidence for a god to exist, therefore making it a theory, which is based on no proof/evidence/anything. This theory therefore holds as much credibility as the giant, purple, invisible, brain-wave consuming, elephant that lives on the top of your left ear.

A theory with no evidence to support its beliefs, is basically just a story.

Right.

So how about the theory that no such creature could (or does) exist?

Surely that needs evidence to support it.

Personally I don't see why you're all so willing to make a leap of faith on a question that none of us can possibly answer.

Why not admit that you honestly can't know or more likley couldn't care?

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:04

Nanoman said:
For:
There are tons of ancient transcripts of encounters with God.

Against:
Presence of God can't/hasn't been scientifically tested in a lab.

Thank you.

So based on that evidence can you say which is right?

DAnDan · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:05

Tefal said:
Right.

So how about the theory that no such creature could (or does) exist?

Surely that needs evidence to support it.

I'm sure it does not exist, as there is no evidence for it existing.

e36Adz · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:07

DAnDan said:
The point is though that there IS evidence for it, lots of it. This theory of a god (in the sense of a bearded-man in the sky creating the world etc) has none.

Sorry but wait a second, who actually believes God to be a bearded man in the sky? I think the majority of people in the world who do believe in God, absolutely reject this notion of a man sat in the clouds. :confused:

Tefal · 13 Apr 2010 at 20:08

DAnDan said:
I'm sure it does not exist, as there is no evidence for it existing.

There is no evidence you can currently test for.

If that's you're definition of certainty then atoms didn't exist for the majority of mankind's history, until they where able to test for them.