To answer you original question, it's a no.
However, as mentioned, the athiest standpoint doesn't really need evidence unless they are saying there is definitely no god.
Will God accept you if you renounce religion?
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
To answer you original question, it's a no.
However, as mentioned, the athiest standpoint doesn't really need evidence unless they are saying there is definitely no god.
A fate worse than locking...I suspect it will descend into the purgatory that is called The Archive.
A few atheists on this thread have deemed there is absolutely no God.
PS: Why should this thread be closed? We're having a debate, what's so wrong about that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Define 'assumption'.
Of course some theories rely on other theories being true, but those theories in turn are supported by evidence. No scientific theory however (note I said 'theory' and not hypothesis) is based on wild speculation or an educated guess like you imply.
Which proves what i said about you not getting the joke. I never said or implied you didn't think mavity existed. My point was you didn't understand it and assumed that no one else did either, and the misunderstanding of the word 'theory' when used scientifically. In short, a scientific theory isn't the same as a conspiracy theory or guess. When used scientifically the word 'theory' is a lot closer to meaning 'proven fact' than 'our best guess' (which is how I think you perceive it).
IIRC, that's only Hurf. He speaks for himself.
It's not really a debate when you're ignoring half of the posts!
Ok, so the atheistic position isn't based on evidence at all. I thought they slated Christians for a supposed belief without evidence?
Well thanks - that clears that up.
That raises the question about what the definition of atheism is then doesn't it?
I think you'll find they say it out of anger. It's not that there is absolutly no god, it's that if it wasn't for the leagues of believers this conversation just wouldn't exist. Science isn't agnostic about anything without some evidence, a year ago the scientific community was agnostic about the Higgs boson, would it be found, wouldn't it etc. However they aren't agnostic about the desires boson, of which I just invented. Why? There is literally no evidence at all other than this piece of scripture stating its existence and so it doesn't 'may exist', it may only 'may not exist', i.e. Science doesn't bother to even entertain the idea without more evidence brought forward, to the science world, with no discussion, the desires boson does not exist. The science world doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't exist however, it just doesn't talk about it or write papers about it. It's dead to the community unless evidence is brought forward.
This should be how God is dealt with. There is no evidence for God therefore he only 'may not exist'. Millions of believers and books of stories can not be used as evidence.
Therefore from a scientific viewpoint God is not worth discussing, he does not exist in scientific discussion until further evidence is brought forward.
Last edited:
Religions portray things as fact. To do that, they need supporting evidence. Athiesm is a belief there is no God.
I've just read some atheist arguing that if God existed he would stop too many people being born or warn people when they are about to sin, or turn all the weapons in the world into flowers.
How stupid! So they want a world where God steps into stop someone killing or raping someone, but as soon as they do something wrong they want to be able to do it with out consequences. Free-will is what has made evil possible, yet atheists for some reason can't seem to grasp that.
How stupid! So they want a world where God steps into stop someone killing or raping someone, but as soon as they do something wrong they want to be able to do it with out consequences. Free-will is what has made evil possible, yet atheists for some reason can't seem to grasp that.
I agree totally. There seem to be thousands of people who state things like "science has come so far that we don't need to talk about God any more".
I just don't understand why people try to shoehorn a metaphysical question into physical/material science. It just doesn't make sense!
Correct.
Assuming your definition of atheism is correct then we are entitled to say that the atheistic world-view has absolutely no positive supporting evidence.
Therefore the atheist can't slate a theist if he offers no evidence?
Do you believe in the power of faith healing?
I believe in prayer, yes.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Not a belief in a lack of God.
There is evidence of absence for the power of faith healing though! If science could provide you with definitive prove God wasn't real would you even change your viewpoint? I don't think there's much point continuing to argue unless you answer that question with a yes.
I think that is slightly different to the traditional meaning of the term.
So would you agree that atheism isn't really a position at all? Is it just a psychological state?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,719
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
That would be me then because I've spent nearly 55 years searching for evidence but there is none and if there is a God it is the nastiest most horriblest thing there has ever been.
Because children haven't got the sense to stay out of threads so like to say 'Close the thread' when it's far easier not to click on it. It happens all the time on here. I feel sorry for them.
Science can never disprove the existence of God.
Atheists are the ones who claimed the universe was eternal, not religious folks. The big bang works in favour of the creation story, since it suggests that the universe had an absolute finite beginning.