God Botherer's

AidanR

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

It's not believing there is no God, it's disbelief that there is. That's where atheism starts and ends.

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

It's a lack of belief, ie. none. It's got nothing to do with proof one way or another; there is no evidence for God{s}, ergo there isn't one. By stating that there is a God{s} the onus is on the religious to prove it.

There's no evidence there isn't a God, ergo there is one. Sounds like a shoddy argument, no?

Yes it is shoddy, if not delusional.

It's your argument! I have simply reversed it to make a point.

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

You believe one way or another. Just because your belief seems utterly self-evident to you doesn't make it any less of a belief.

I give up.

I really can't see how I can make it any clearer. You seem to be wilfully ignoring my point, or are too blind to see it. You cannot prove there is no God, therefore thinking there is no God is a belief

Crapaud wrote:

AidanR wrote:

Well, let's see. Did Judaism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Hinduism exist in the Bronze Age? Did Islam exist in the Bronze Age? To say that religion hasn't changed in 5000 years is ill-informed to say the least.

You're confusing different religions and a religion changing over time. They're not the same. When your Holy Book is infused with the unalterable word of God how can it change? Incidently, which God's the real one ... or are they all real?

Of course religions change. Beliefs and dogmas are endlessly debated and recontextualised. You may have heard of it - it's called theology.

bianchimoon

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

your just playing with silly words now.. i don't believe there is no god.. I KNOW there is no god, does that make it clearer?

AidanR

bianchimoon wrote:

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

your just playing with silly words now.. i don't believe there is no god.. I KNOW there is no god, does that make it clearer?

Prove it.

MountainMonster

AidanR wrote:

@MountainMonster

I'm not saying there's proof there's a God. And I'm not trying to convince you that there is one. My point is on the nature of belief. It irritates my greatly when people say blithely "there is no God" and imply that anyone who believes otherwise is a misled idiot. That is an arrogant, incorrect and likely rather ironic position. There have been many very intelligent people who have thought an awful lot and come to the conclusion they believe in God, just as there have been many highly intelligent people who have come to the opposite conclusion.

As for religion being created to control people, I would suggest you read the New Testament. It is a deeply subversive book, and very anti-authoritarian. That's not to say, of course, that religion hasn't been invoked as a way of controlling people.

Oh, and your dates on the composition of the Bible are out. The earliest books were written around 65AD, with the canon as it is today first appearing in 367 AD (though the books were obviously written before this date).

That is a good point, but as many of the non believers who say there is no god, there are 1,000 more hateful christians willing to "condemn you to hell" for not enjoying the same thing they do. Ask yourself which is worse in the end?

I've gotta admit, i'm no bible expert, never have been and never will be. I see it as all crazy, but everyone enjoys different things.

AidanR

MountainMonster wrote:

That is a good point, but as many of the non believers who say there is no god, there are 1,000 more hateful christians willing to "condemn you to hell" for not enjoying the same thing they do. Ask yourself which is worse in the end?

Don't worry, hateful Christians will burn in a hell of their own irony.

bianchimoon

AidanR wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

What on earth is the difference between disbelief there is a God and belief that there isn't a God? You state there is no God. You cannot prove this. Therefore it is a belief.

your just playing with silly words now.. i don't believe there is no god.. I KNOW there is no god, does that make it clearer?

Prove it.

you miss the point i'll try again 'I KNOW IT' you can only prove 'real' things therefore impossible to prove such things as.. Ghosts, fairies, goblins, gods etc

AidanR

No, you don't know it. You believe it. You cannot disprove God's existence any more than you can prove it. Therefore I believe there is a God and you believe there isn't a God. Why is your belief knowledge and mine not?

gilesjuk

AidanR wrote:

No, you don't know it. You believe it. You cannot disprove God's existence any more than you can prove it. Therefore I believe there is a God and you believe there isn't a God. Why is your belief knowledge and mine not?

Evolution is a pretty good way of disproving God. Evolution shows quite clearly that we evolved from apes and other beings before then.

So god didn't create us in his own image.

Evolution is everywhere, the "intelligent design" crowd would like to ignore it but you simply can't.

Take the common cold and flu, every winter a different strain appears, this is due to the virus evolving. Without evolution there would be no such behaviour.

Okay, so it only disproves god as in the bible. But it is pretty improbable if you read up on the subject

eg.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-d ... 32164.html

bianchimoon

AidanR wrote:

No, you don't know it. You believe it. You cannot disprove God's existence any more than you can prove it. Therefore I believe there is a God and you believe there isn't a God. Why is your belief knowledge and mine not?

simple, cos i'm sensible and rational and know certain things are human imaginary beliefs such as auras, astrology, meridian lines, psychics, homeopathy, santa claus and...gods your or any of the others, you on the other hand have a Faith which is the denial of observation so that your belief can be preserved.

AidanR

My point is you have faith too, it's just in something else. If you cannot engage with the point I'm making there's not much point continuing the debate.

bianchimoon

AidanR wrote:

My point is you have faith too, it's just in something else. If you cannot engage with the point I'm making there's not much point continuing the debate.

aww don't go away Aiden, lets continue.. i do have faith.. in my own ability to be rational, for me to have 'faith' that there is no god would mean there was a doubt in my mind no matter how tiny, that's where i differ from people such as Richard Dawkins and the atheist bus campaign 'there probably is no god.. etc' , i am saying about Gods the same way i would say about goblins, fairies etc, they don't exist - period

squeeler

AidanR seems to be getting a bit of unfair stick here, to me he seems to be putting forward a pretty rational scientific arguement that
a) if you can't prove something exists it does not prove that it doesn't
b) if you can't prove something does not exist it does not prove that it does

From my POV I don't believe in God, and especially not organized religion, but I accept the possiblity that something beyond what we understand may well exist. There is no proof that it doesn't, there is no proof that it does. I think that is why IMO Aidan is using the term "belief" rather than "proof" and this discussion is maybe derailling into sematics?

pb21

bianchimoon wrote:

AidanR wrote:

My point is you have faith too, it's just in something else. If you cannot engage with the point I'm making there's not much point continuing the debate.

aww don't go away Aiden, lets continue.. i do have faith.. in my own ability to be rational, for me to have 'faith' that there is no god would mean there was a doubt in my mind no matter how tiny, that's where i differ from people such as Richard Dawkins and the atheist bus campaign 'there probably is no god.. etc' , i am saying about Gods the same way i would say about goblins, fairies etc, they don't exist - period

What does exist then?

graham.

Well I'm just grateful that our Lord the Baby Jesus was born in the deep mid winter, as it means that I can keep my Christmas lager cool just by leaving it outside the back door, thereby leaving space in the fridge for less important stuf, like food.
Graham.

AidanR

Actually, you have paganism to thank for that.

It is very unlikely Jesus was born in winter, and the reason Christmas is when it is is because the Church decided to slap it on top of the pagan winter festival.


Anyway, I'll admit my point is somewhat nuanced, and perhaps not immediately clear to everyone. It is quite postmodern, in that it shies away from notions of absolute truth and knowledge and seeks to acknowledge that all of our thinking is based on certain (often implicit) assumptions and beliefs. That doesn't preclude rationality, but it supposes that rationality is constructed on the foundations of these assumptions.

bianchimoon

pb21 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

AidanR wrote:

My point is you have faith too, it's just in something else. If you cannot engage with the point I'm making there's not much point continuing the debate.

aww don't go away Aiden, lets continue.. i do have faith.. in my own ability to be rational, for me to have 'faith' that there is no god would mean there was a doubt in my mind no matter how tiny, that's where i differ from people such as Richard Dawkins and the atheist bus campaign 'there probably is no god.. etc' , i am saying about Gods the same way i would say about goblins, fairies etc, they don't exist - period

What does exist then?

ahhh good point, correction god does exist. in the minds of people who believe in him

verylonglegs

squeeler wrote:

AidanR seems to be getting a bit of unfair stick here, to me he seems to be putting forward a pretty rational scientific arguement that
a) if you can't prove something exists it does not prove that it doesn't
b) if you can't prove something does not exist it does not prove that it does

From my POV I don't believe in God, and especially not organized religion, but I accept the possiblity that something beyond what we understand may well exist. There is no proof that it doesn't, there is no proof that it does. I think that is why IMO Aidan is using the term "belief" rather than "proof" and this discussion is maybe derailling into sematics?

I agree, bianchimoon is either deliberately ignoring the point or doesn't appreciate the difference.

AidanR

bianchimoon wrote:

AidanR wrote:

My point is you have faith too, it's just in something else. If you cannot engage with the point I'm making there's not much point continuing the debate.

aww don't go away Aiden, lets continue.. i do have faith.. in my own ability to be rational, for me to have 'faith' that there is no god would mean there was a doubt in my mind no matter how tiny, that's where i differ from people such as Richard Dawkins and the atheist bus campaign 'there probably is no god.. etc' , i am saying about Gods the same way i would say about goblins, fairies etc, they don't exist - period

Do you believe in trolls?

bianchimoon

AidanR wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

AidanR wrote:

My point is you have faith too, it's just in something else. If you cannot engage with the point I'm making there's not much point continuing the debate.

aww don't go away Aiden, lets continue.. i do have faith.. in my own ability to be rational, for me to have 'faith' that there is no god would mean there was a doubt in my mind no matter how tiny, that's where i differ from people such as Richard Dawkins and the atheist bus campaign 'there probably is no god.. etc' , i am saying about Gods the same way i would say about goblins, fairies etc, they don't exist - period

Do you believe in trolls?

hmm i'll take the wink in the spirit i think it's intended, first time i've ever been called a troll I thought we were having the age old debate that no one could ever win, hence we won't ever agree but name calling hey come on

ddraver

AidanR wrote:

Anyway, I'll admit my point is somewhat nuanced, and perhaps not immediately clear to everyone. It is quite postmodern, in that it shies away from notions of absolute truth and knowledge and seeks to acknowledge that all of our thinking is based on certain (often implicit) assumptions and beliefs. That doesn't preclude rationality, but it supposes that rationality is constructed on the foundations of these assumptions.

Rubbish! We all understand your point perfectly, We also understand that tis a total non argument because by using it you could "prove" the existence of anything your mind could conceive - this is the point behind the flying spaghetti monster

We are reasoning that there is no God based on that total lack of evidence vs a very good (albeit incomplete) model of creation, morality and human existence provided by science. To say that there IS a god/gods/flying spagetthi monster because you cannot reason that there IS NO god is to abandon reason altogether...

(phew!)

AidanR

Aaarrrrgggghhhh! (sorry)

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. That is not my point. It has never been what I am arguing. Clearly I have been doing a sh*t job of getting my point across.

bicyclepirate

ddraver wrote:

Rubbish! We all understand your point perfectly, We also understand that tis a total non argument because by using it you could "prove" the existence of anything your mind could conceive - this is the point behind the flying spaghetti monster

We are reasoning that there is no God based on that total lack of evidence vs a very good (albeit incomplete) model of creation, morality and human existence provided by science. To say that there IS a god/gods/flying spagetthi monster because you cannot reason that there IS NO god is to abandon reason altogether...

(phew!)

Er excuse me, but are you trying to suggest his noodilyness is made up? The church of FSM is a proper religion and should be given more respect, I mean sure, we don't go fiddling with kids, abusing homosexuals or encouraging the spread of aids by calling condoms unholy. But we are doing our best you know.

All hail the FSM

izza

I think we need to concentrate on the underlying issues.

Via religion we have a systems and organisations, such as the Catholic Church that have evolved and built their own structure. Let us not get derailed on the Irish part that tried to hard in its recruitment of the younger generation but more on the fact that every organisational structure needs a figure head.

In order to denominate such a figure as important, there is a want to decorate or dress them in riches and garments. Riches are inherently of higher value due to their looks and more importantly their rarity. This encourages the followers to look elsewhere, above and beyond their own back yard. This is except for the Welsh who merely looked at a few shiny bits in their slate mines and called it gold - only a fool would fall for that.

This want, combined by a want to prove one's own religion is more truthful than others pushes our countries and cultures to explore more and more. Ultimately, as long as we ignore the need to prevent some people such as the Scots escaping from their own fields by building a wall across their southerly border, this is epitomised by the Space race.

Well (and as they say in the shampoo adverts, "here in the science bit"), NASA led this race from a Western perspective. The rate at which a rocket can climb and escape our atmosphere is based upon the size of its propulsion unit - i.e. rocket. The limiting factor of all NASA rockets' size is the logistics of bringing parts to the construction site. For the Apollo missions, the booster exhausts were brought by train. And as such, the limiting factor was the size of the railways.

Historically, railways have to agree on the size of their tracks otherwise trains cannot go across nations or continents. And in the days of the first commercial US steam trains the tracks were laid using horses to drag machinery. As such, the width of the tracks was deemed via a calculation based the width of the horse drawn carriage - i.e. the width of two horses at their widest point. This is their rear quarters.

So ultimately history teaches us that to look forward and study religion we must lock up the celtic countries as they roam around detracting us with their delinquency and then stare deeply and earnestly at a horses ass. Upon those remedies we shall discover truth.

bicyclepirate

Wasn't Brunel gauge like 7 and a half feet. That is a mighty big horse.

mask of sanity

squeeler wrote:

AidanR seems to be getting a bit of unfair stick here, to me he seems to be putting forward a pretty rational scientific arguement that
a) if you can't prove something exists it does not prove that it doesn't
b) if you can't prove something does not exist it does not prove that it does

It's not a scientific point at all seeing as you can't scientifically prove a negative and the rational assumption to make when you can't prove something is to assume it's not the case. Atheism is simply a response to a claim. Someone says they beleive in god, i say i don't have that belief, therefore I'm an atheist. No belief there.


This is why I hate the word atheist. It's such a confused word and gets used wrongly so often. I also don't understand why I have to label myself as something just because of someone elses belief system. There's no word for someone who doesn't believe in 'aliens', yet believing in 'aliens' would be a much for rational belief then believing in a god.


From now on I'm going to consider myself a rationaist rather than an atheist, lol.

AidanR

You're quite correct, my argument is a philosophical one, not scientific. I take your point about atheism, but it is a little different from not believing in aliens. It is about having an underlying philosophy of life - what you ultimately believe in. That may or may not include God. You may subscribe to the arguments of a particular philosopher, or even theologian. You may not have thought about it in depth at all. But even if you haven't, you will have subconsciously absorbed beliefs from around you, and you will believe in something. You might not be keen on labelling it, but it still exists.

MattC59

Whether you believe a god does or does not exist, the bottom line is that there is nothing to support the idea that it does, where as there is a lot to support the idea that it doesn't.

cornerblock

Seems to be a lot of preaching going on here.

ddraver

AidanR - Sorry but that's not right eiter. That imposes a belief system on the world. Essentiallty t assumes that belief in God is a default posistion and that Atheists have chosen not to believe it or that they believe in nothing - Atheism is the absence of a belief system.

I think Religious people sometimes struggle to understand that atheists do not have a "god shaped hole" that they are trying to fill with "atheism" or "science". This is not the case, I/We have no hole, I/we are not lessened because we don't believe in god/religion

ddraver

AidanR - Sorry but that's not right either. That imposes a belief system on the world. Essentially it assumes that belief in God is a default posistion and that Atheists have chosen not to believe it or that they believe in nothing - Atheism is the absence of a belief system.

I think religious people sometimes struggle to understand that atheists do not have a "god shaped hole" that they are trying to fill with "atheism" or "science". This is not the case, I/We have no hole, I/we are not lessened because we don't believe in god/religion