Atheists unite

Drizmod said:
I dont see how if one person believes in it or millions do affects how you view if something does not exist?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misread your opening gambit.

My own personal response would be to laugh at you :)

That doesn't mean it would be the right thing to do of course...
 
Drizmod said:
I dont see how if one person believes in it or millions do affects how you view if something does not exist?
Click to expand...

Millions of people believed that the world was flat, and that black people were inferior to white people... nothing like validating something based purely on mass of conviction. Maybe I should come to terms with the fact that Adele (12 million albums sold) and Taylor Swift (10 million albums sold) are the best musicians of the 2010's, and that M*A*S*H was the best finale of a tv show of all time (105 million viewers).
 
RDM said:
It does seem to be a judgement though, unless you include the Abrahamic God too. You seem to be saying that the Abrahamic God is more likely to be true than one of the Neopagan gods.
Click to expand...

How can God (big G) be more likely to exist that say one of the pantheon of neopagan gods?

Now I like God, and I like Selene, Begoe, Freya and Mars. But who is the best god? There's only one way to find out... FIGHT!!!
 
Gilly said:
I don't quite know how you have arrived at that. It isn't something he's said.
Click to expand...

It is building on that quote and a previous one about not really being able to define the Abrahamic God. I am basically atheist (as in I don't believe in God rather than I specifically believe that God does not exist) so it isn't really a big deal to me, but I don't really see how the Abrahamic God is any more or less believable than the pagan gods of Northern Europe.

Other than the nonexistence of Frost Giants lending weight to the existence of the Norse Gods as they have managed to kill them all. :D
 
Galaxies can be verified with telescope.

I realy don't see castiel argument as valid. It doesn't not matter whether we can agree on a definition of god. The point is that we don't need to prove something (anything) does not exist. We only need to prove positive claims.
 
anything I don't mind said:
The point is that we don't need to prove something (anything) does not exist. We only need to prove positive claims.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about physics, but I was under the impression that we cannot actually see electrons (may be neutrons or protons or something) we just take it on faith that they exist because we can see what we perceive to be their effect on on the other atomy bits (I did say I don't know much about physics :P).

By your logic Electrons are false.
 
anything I don't mind said:
Galaxies can be verified with telescope.

I realy don't see castiel argument as valid. It doesn't not matter whether we can agree on a definition of god. The point is that we don't need to prove something (anything) does not exist. We only need to prove positive claims.
Click to expand...

If you can't agree on what it is you're searching for then surely that has to constitute an impediment to finding it?

Not trying to prove the existence of a god is probably quite sensible though, given most definitions seem to have the god as being beyond the realms of the physical world (albeit sometimes with interaction in our physical universe) then trying to prove something that exists when we may very well have no ability to measure or observe it strikes me as a touch futile.

Proving the non-existence of something which is non-corporeal isn't something science is designed to deal with so it's good to recognise the limitations. Science can prove or disprove set claims but those claims have to be defined so there an ability to observe them, measure them (in some regard) and usually repeat them to make for predictive accuracy.

//edit minor point perhaps but it's not entirely clear from your last two sentences what you mean - you can disprove certain things exist if they're clearly defined and in the observable arena. A positive claim might be that there's a 200' dinosaur striding about Hyde Park - to prove that doesn't exist is trivially simple provided there are no caveats about its properties being outside of the physical world.
 
RDM said:
It does seem to be a judgement though, unless you include the Abrahamic God too. You seem to be saying that the Abrahamic God is more likely to be true than one of the Neopagan gods.
Click to expand...

I include all specifically defined manifestations where a nature or attribute can be objectively determined. This would include various manifestations of The Abrahamic God and their interpretations thereof.
 
I read somewhere the other day that if our universe is expanding then it must be expanding into something that exists. And once we find out what that is then we are closer to understanding our own universe.

My problem with that is once we find out what that thing is then isn't the next logical step to find out what contains this other object? And so on and on. Where would it stop?

I believe that it's very difficult if not impossible for our human brains to fully comprehend the whole of creation.

Does that imply God exists? No but it helps explain why so many people believe in God.

After all the question why are we here is one we have all asked ourselves. And it is a very important question.

Despite the vastness and majesty of our universe we find humans ourselves are in fact more complex then any nebula, galaxy or any other such structure.

If we found a single ant on another world (arguably not Mars) it would be the biggest discovery in our whole history. And a single ant or any other life form is something we can not recreate or fully comprehend how it was created.

So with or without belief in God our universe is an amazing place and perhaps we are the most special part of it (i hope not).
 
ubersonic said:
I don't know much about physics, but I was under the impression that we cannot actually see electrons (may be neutrons or protons or something) we just take it on faith that they exist because we can see what we perceive to be their effect on on the other atomy bits (I did say I don't know much about physics :P).

By your logic Electrons are false.
Click to expand...



A scientific model is not the thing itself.

anything I don't mind said:
The point is that we don't need to prove something (anything) does not exist. We only need to prove positive claims.
Click to expand...

That my friend is called Fraud. For example, in a ponzi scheme it is REQUIRED to disprove the claim (a genuine investment) to prove the fraud. And don't you dare circular argument me that the claim of fraud is the positive claim to be proved. I took you off my ignore list to respond. I don't know what you did to annoy me, so i don't expect anything good to come of your response.
 
Last edited:
More people believing also doesn't lend any credibility, if they have nothing to show for it other than:

-warm feelings
-people surviving crashes
-finding your car keys
-winning a sports match
-Jesus on toast
 
marc2003 said:
i'm not passing comment on this guy or what he has to say but i do find it very hard to believe that anyone of faith is going to change their mind after watching some random youtube video. :/
Click to expand...

Why not? Some idiots become Christians after seeing Jesus on burnt toast
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom