Soldato
The members of the EDL themselves prove that evolution, not a god, is responsible for everything and also shows that Neanderthals haven't become extinct.
EDL March Against New Mosque That Turned Out To Be A KFC Cost Police £500,000
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
Not to be rude but if I had meant the universe I'd of asked about the universe
. As far as I know there's no definitive proof how either started only theories.I do understand what you're saying but as I said if it can't be ruled out it is still plausible. For example the size of the universe remaining a constant size until we had the tech to prove otherwise it was the dominant theory.
Since god hasn't been proved to exist whose to say in 50 years the tech to prove otherwise won't exist.
I don't believe in god doesn't mean I can dismiss the existence of one because of the lack of evidence.
Man of Honour
I don't think enough is being made of this video.
This is your typical EDL member. In fact, he would appear to be the spokesperson of this particular merry little band, else those other mouth breathers behind him would also be speaking, surely?
Man of Honour
You're advocating critical thinking, but you are treating your own interpretation of a single unclear statement by one atheist both as proof that your interpretation is the objective truth and that your interpretation of that single piece of data is proof that your pre-existing suspicion is true for a very large number of people. That's not critical thinking - it's a very flimsy rationalisation of unsubtantiated belief.
When you say "people who hold atheist beliefs", do you mean all atheists or just those with beliefs about deities? Many atheists don't have any beliefs about deities, but it's common for people who do have beliefs to not understand a lack of belief and thus assume it's belief in something else.
You were saying you had thought about this and then you go and substantiate your view with a great big fallacy.
And I note you say believe.
I stated no belief only a suspicion.
Associate
How do you know that is a typical edl member ? Do you personally know then all ? Personally I've never met one (that I know of) so wouldn't generalise about them all. Seems to me you are judging them the same way you believe they judge others ?
Associate
Eh? It's the same way I do not believe in fairies or Father Christmas ? I'm confused as to why you can not understand when I say I do not believe in things that can not be proven with evidence therefor I do not believe in god. I'm trying to dumb it down for you as best I can. I do apologise if I'm not making it clear enough for you
Soldato
I think the same about this video on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27960816
"UK police will have to deal with the threat of British fighters returning from Syria for "many years", a top Scotland Yard officer has told the BBC"
The first thing those islamist terrorists will say when they come back? I want my dole money back dated! I hope they die out there.
You do have some sort of belief when you regard scientific theory as expiation
You are believing what you are told.
It is a different league to the big religions but you do have to be aware that a lot of things are far from absolute. And some critical concepts underpinning other concepts
But as said. The main religions are a whole different ball park
But to me the topic isn't this fundamental it's the difference in Islam to the other religions which to me at least seem far more tolerant
You are believing what you are told.
It is a different league to the big religions but you do have to be aware that a lot of things are far from absolute. And some critical concepts underpinning other concepts
But as said. The main religions are a whole different ball park
But to me the topic isn't this fundamental it's the difference in Islam to the other religions which to me at least seem far more tolerant
Man of Honour
The available evidence doesn't prove that Neanderthals were more primitive than humans. They had more space inside their skull (which doesn't mean they were more intelligent, of course, since their brains wouldn't necessarily have had the same structure as human brains), they made tools and they made art. It seems quite likely that they were on an intellectual par with humans. It's even possible that they were on average more intelligent than humans. The dominant hypothesis for explaining why they died out and humans flourished is that humans formed larger social groups and were therefore collectively stronger in terms of survival and breeding even though an individual neanderthal would probably have been significantly stronger in those terms than an individual human.
Man of Honour
It's not really belief.
Yes, I assume that there isn't a huge conspiracy of lies amongst scientists to suppress evidence. I wouldn't call that a belief, though. It would take a conspiracy, since there are cross-checking mechanisms built into science. It's not at all likely that one scientist or a few scientists could falsify evidence and have it accepted on faith without any other scientists finding out sooner or later, probably sooner.
Yes, I am aware that many things in science are not absolute. Laws are ("when this happens, that will happen"), theories aren't ("this explanation of how this sort of thing happens fits all available evidence"). But if an explanation is tested millions of times by millions of people and holds up every time, it's reasonable to assign it a very high probability of being true and to treat it as true on a casual, day to day basis. That's a far higher standard of evidence than would normally be required to be considered proof.
At the moment, yes. Some other religions have the potential to be as domineering, power-hungry, intolerant and brutal, but aren't currently implemented that way.
Soldato
That's Special Brew for you.
Oh you are making certain things abundantly clear to me - don't worry on that score.
Associate
Oh you are making certain things abundantly clear to me - don't worry on that score.
Some how I doubt that. Do you believe in Father Christmas and that on the 24th December every year he flies around the world delivering presents ?
Soldato
Of course not because there is a wealth of documented record to show it is a man made construct with a clear historical path and pattern of tradition. The notion of god though is something that can not be scientifically tested and therefore (to me) is of no interest.
I am happy to sit their in an agnostic state knowing that whilst I accept many scientific theories and explanations I have to make some a priori assumptions before I start accepting them. Therefore, I feel that if I have to take a leap of faith and believe in things before I establish my scientific paradigm I would be a bit remiss if I were to not allow others to take some liberties that stretch those beliefs a bit further.
This goes back to the original point I made to you. You can only dismiss god with a belief of your own that is to the opposite, not scientifically, so best not to get on the highhorse.
Man of Honour
But the same is true of Father Christmas. You can't scientifically test anything supernatural. It can be proven that a person subject to natural laws couldn't do it, but Father Christmas isn't subject to natural laws. He does it with magic. He is a god, after all.
There is a historical path and pattern of tradition with Father Christmas, but the same thing is true of all the many gods various people believe in (or believed in, for religions that have died of). There's also about as much of a documented record of them being man-made constructs, since they predate documented records (with the exception of some recently invented religions). Father Christmas isn't Santa Claus - he's the personification of the midwinter festival and that predates written records.
So you should be equally agnostic about Father Christmas (and anything else supernatural, since it can't be tested scientifically).
Last edited:
There is a huge difference between Father Christmas (and the various cultural equivalents) and the concept of God. Xordium is right insofar that we can follow a defined pathway when determining the validity of Father Christmas whereas no such pathway is possible with God, mainly due to the indeterminable nature of defining God in the first place.
So, no it isn't logically sound to assume an equal scepticism.