God Botherer's

Cleat Eastwood

RichN95 wrote:

pb21 wrote:

If a god or whatever doesn’t exist where does everything come from?

Tesco

And that seems as good a time as any for some of this....

One Man And His Bike

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

All she is missing is a tub of Philadelphia and a dildo and I'd buy that DVD... :oops:

If she was dressed as a devil you can change the cheese to some Nutella!!! :shock:

Cleat Eastwood

One Man And His Bike wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

All she is missing is a tub of Philadelphia and a dildo and I'd buy that DVD... :oops:

If she was dressed as a devil you can change the cheese to some Nutella!!! :shock:

That's my boy, now this threads back on track.

rhext

-spider- wrote:

ol\'gregg wrote:

IT'S SCIENCE it has been proven correct. That is all

HHhmmm...

Sadly it is not as simple as that. There is a lot of science that has been proved correct - and then later, with more evidence, hit as been proved to be not quite correct - or even wrong.

This to me simply highlights one of the main strengths of science and consequential weaknesses of religion.

In science, we form a model for the way the world behaves. We use that model to make predictions and measure its effectiveness. The more precisely we measure the effectiveness of the model, the more likely we are to expose areas where it doesn't predict accurately. So we refine the model and carry on. If you don't understand that process you conclude 'aha, Science has been proven to be wrong'. If you understand that process you say 'great, science has yielded a better way to represent and predict the behaviour of the universe'. Science is just the process by which we refine our understanding and 'getting it wrong' is an integral part of that process.

Religion, on the other hand, completely ignores the behaviour of the physical world and blindly refuses to adjust belief systems in the face of overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary.......

MattC59

rhext wrote:

I'm kind of with Aidan. At the end of the day, I don't see how it's possible to prove the non-existance of god(s), so believing that there are none is ultimately a leap of faith, albeit a much smaller one than the opposing belief.

I'd sum up my attitude to faith as 'if god(s) do exist then they hide themselves well"

I'd sum up my attitude to religion as 'we can argue all day about whether they're a force for good/evil or simply a channel for behaviours which would surface anyway, but there's little doubt they're a force for ignorance.'

I'd argue that the existance of gods can't be disproved because the concept of god is so vague (what is god ?) that said believers can alter the parameters to suit their arguement. Moving the goal posts again !

Anyway, where did God come from ?

One Man And His Bike

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

One Man And His Bike wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

All she is missing is a tub of Philadelphia and a dildo and I'd buy that DVD... :oops:

If she was dressed as a devil you can change the cheese to some Nutella!!! :shock:

That's my boy, now this threads back on track.

DAD???? IS THAT YOU?! :shock:

(I know, some people have taken this thread serious, how dare they!)

rhext

MattC59 wrote:

rhext wrote:

I'm kind of with Aidan. At the end of the day, I don't see how it's possible to prove the non-existance of god(s), so believing that there are none is ultimately a leap of faith, albeit a much smaller one than the opposing belief.

I'd sum up my attitude to faith as 'if god(s) do exist then they hide themselves well"

I'd sum up my attitude to religion as 'we can argue all day about whether they're a force for good/evil or simply a channel for behaviours which would surface anyway, but there's little doubt they're a force for ignorance.'

I'd argue that the existance of gods can't be disproved because the concept of god is so vague (what is god ?) that said believers can alter the parameters to suit their arguement. Moving the goal posts again !

Anyway, where did God come from ?

I'd argue that the existance of anything can't be disproved!

MattC59

AidanR wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Why can't the scientific method be applied? Because it's difficult or inconvenient?

This is MattC59's point about moving the goalposts.

Let's boil this down to the bare essentials. Forget for a moment any notion of religion, organised or otherwise, and focus solely on the question of whether there is a God or not.

The scientific method requires that we create a hypothesis, make predictions based on this hypothesis, construct objective quantifiable tests for these predictions, and then analyse whether the results support or disprove the hypothesis.

How exactly does this apply to such an existential question?

Where as faith in god is simply 'There is a god, you're wrong'

Science is not there to disprove god, but to investigate the universe we live in.

The main difference between science and faith is that the most common answer in science is "We don't know" where as in faith it is "We do know"

Quite simply, in the absence of any evidence, or even with a little bit of evidence, science will happily say "We don't know" where as those with faith in god will say "we do know".

Or the best one I've heard; "I don't need proof that god exists, I just know he does"
No, you don't know. :roll:

One Man And His Bike

BOOBS

One Man And His Bike

WOBBLE

One Man And His Bike

WOBBLE

One Man And His Bike

WOBBLE

One Man And His Bike

Because of Gravity, not God.

MattC59

rhext wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

rhext wrote:

I'm kind of with Aidan. At the end of the day, I don't see how it's possible to prove the non-existance of god(s), so believing that there are none is ultimately a leap of faith, albeit a much smaller one than the opposing belief.

I'd sum up my attitude to faith as 'if god(s) do exist then they hide themselves well"

I'd sum up my attitude to religion as 'we can argue all day about whether they're a force for good/evil or simply a channel for behaviours which would surface anyway, but there's little doubt they're a force for ignorance.'

I'd argue that the existance of gods can't be disproved because the concept of god is so vague (what is god ?) that said believers can alter the parameters to suit their arguement. Moving the goal posts again !

Anyway, where did God come from ?

I'd argue that the existance of anything can't be disproved!

Yes, but that's not quite the same is it. If I try to disprove the existance of my desk lamp, it's difficult because there is evidence that it exists. If I try to disprove the existance of god, there is no evidence that it exists, so it's existance can always be interpreted by the believers as something other than that which I am trying to, or am successful in disproving.

izza

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

One Man And His Bike wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

All she is missing is a tub of Philadelphia and a dildo and I'd buy that DVD... :oops:

If she was dressed as a devil you can change the cheese to some Nutella!!! :shock:

That's my boy, now this threads back on track.

But from an existential point of view, are her hands using a Wii type controller to rotate her buxom upper or has God, in his invisible manner, wrapped his hands around her from behind and having a damn good fumble.

rhext

MattC59 wrote:

rhext wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

rhext wrote:

I'm kind of with Aidan. At the end of the day, I don't see how it's possible to prove the non-existance of god(s), so believing that there are none is ultimately a leap of faith, albeit a much smaller one than the opposing belief.

I'd sum up my attitude to faith as 'if god(s) do exist then they hide themselves well"

I'd sum up my attitude to religion as 'we can argue all day about whether they're a force for good/evil or simply a channel for behaviours which would surface anyway, but there's little doubt they're a force for ignorance.'

I'd argue that the existance of gods can't be disproved because the concept of god is so vague (what is god ?) that said believers can alter the parameters to suit their arguement. Moving the goal posts again !

Anyway, where did God come from ?

I'd argue that the existance of anything can't be disproved!

Yes, but that's not quite the same is it. If I try to disprove the existance of my desk lamp, it's difficult because there is evidence that it exists. If I try to disprove the existance of god, there is no evidence that it exists, so it's existance can always be interpreted by the believers as something other than that which I am trying to, or am successful in disproving.

That's my point. You can't search the entire universe and you certainly can't search whatever it is lies beyond the universe, so you can never really be totally certain that whatever you're trying to disprove doesn't exist somewhere. You can declare it very unlikely, but until you fully understand the whole universe you're stuck. So when people say 'you can't disprove the existence of god' they're absolutely right. But that carries no more weight than saying 'you can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or The Force'. Just because I can't prove it's not there, doesn't make it very likely that it is.

bianchimoon

I'd argue that the existance of anything can't be disproved![/quote]

As its a matter of fact that you can't prove the existence / non existence of a god just as you can't prove there's not a teapot floating in an exact opposite orbit to earth on the opposite side of the sun. The bigger question is why would someone believe in something that you can't prove/disprove the existence of? I struggle with this one, all the people i know that are religious are so because of either indoctrination, fear of life/death, love the god 'brand', love the church social life or simply don't want to think about the alternative.

One Man And His Bike

izza wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

One Man And His Bike wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

All she is missing is a tub of Philadelphia and a dildo and I'd buy that DVD... :oops:

If she was dressed as a devil you can change the cheese to some Nutella!!! :shock:

That's my boy, now this threads back on track.

But from an existential point of view, are her hands using a Wii type controller to rotate her buxom upper or has God, in his invisible manner, wrapped his hands around her from behind and having a damn good fumble.

If that image had sound you would hear 3 things:

1) An unmistakable buzzing noise
2) The rustle of feathers
3) A delicious "ooooh yeah" type sound

That bean is surely getting flicked or having it's tower buzzed... :twisted:

ddraver

AidanR wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Why can't the scientific method be applied? Because it's difficult or inconvenient?

This is MattC59's point about moving the goalposts.

Let's boil this down to the bare essentials. Forget for a moment any notion of religion, organised or otherwise, and focus solely on the question of whether there is a God or not.

The scientific method requires that we create a hypothesis, make predictions based on this hypothesis, construct objective quantifiable tests for these predictions, and then analyse whether the results support or disprove the hypothesis.

How exactly does this apply to such an existential question?

Been here, done this - this is a non argument.

AidanR

MattC59 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Why can't the scientific method be applied? Because it's difficult or inconvenient?

This is MattC59's point about moving the goalposts.

Let's boil this down to the bare essentials. Forget for a moment any notion of religion, organised or otherwise, and focus solely on the question of whether there is a God or not.

The scientific method requires that we create a hypothesis, make predictions based on this hypothesis, construct objective quantifiable tests for these predictions, and then analyse whether the results support or disprove the hypothesis.

How exactly does this apply to such an existential question?

Where as faith in god is simply 'There is a god, you're wrong'

Science is not there to disprove god, but to investigate the universe we live in.

The main difference between science and faith is that the most common answer in science is "We don't know" where as in faith it is "We do know"

Quite simply, in the absence of any evidence, or even with a little bit of evidence, science will happily say "We don't know" where as those with faith in god will say "we do know".

Or the best one I've heard; "I don't need proof that god exists, I just know he does"
No, you don't know. :roll:

"I don't need proof God doesn't exist, I just know he doesn't" is, logically, just as absurd. Those who say, in the absence of any evidence, that "we do know there's no God" are being just as unscientific as those who do believe in God. Again, don't confuse atheism with science.

I don't claim to know there's a God. I believe there is one, but I constantly doubt. I am probably a lot less certain that there is a God than most people here are certain that there isn't.

And as I said before, I don't see science and religion as needing to be in conflict.

ddraver wrote:

AidanR wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Why can't the scientific method be applied? Because it's difficult or inconvenient?

This is MattC59's point about moving the goalposts.

Let's boil this down to the bare essentials. Forget for a moment any notion of religion, organised or otherwise, and focus solely on the question of whether there is a God or not.

The scientific method requires that we create a hypothesis, make predictions based on this hypothesis, construct objective quantifiable tests for these predictions, and then analyse whether the results support or disprove the hypothesis.

How exactly does this apply to such an existential question?

Been here, done this - this is a non argument.

A non-argument for what, exactly? As I've said many times, I'm not here to try and prove the existence of God. I think it's a valid argument for the point I'm actually trying to make, rather than the point most people want to believe I'm trying to make.

ddraver

Because saying something exists because you can't prove it's absence does not, ego, mean that the thing exists. One would nt make such an assumption about spaghetti monsters so why is god given this privilege?

You've said in the post above that you believe there is a god based on the above principal...you have not, I presume, afforded it to spag monsters or celestial teapots. Why?

It is a non argument because you have abandond reason or rational thought because, in this special case, we re talking about god.

AidanR

You haven't actually bothered reading a word of what I've written have you?

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm not even arguing that he does exist. The nearest I have come is to state that I believe that he does. This is not a viewpoint that I seek to impose on anyone else.

I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

- The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.
- Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy.
- Not believing there is a God = believing there is no God (for all intents and purposes*).
- Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.


*I have doubts - many Christians do. Call me an agnosic theist if you will

pb21

It’s inconceivable to believe in flying teapots as these are constructs of human thought. A god in the sense that humans are able to think of doesn’t make any sense, but who is to say that human thought is able to think to an appropriate sense.

An analogy (probably flawed) is that you can’t run the latest computer programmes on computers from the 90s.

MattC59

I have a question for those who do believe in god, and I don't intend this in any disrespectful way:

At what point in your life did you subscribe to the idea of god, and what was it that convinced you that there is an all powerful entity, dispite a complete lack of anything to suggest that there is a god ?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is what made you think, 'there's nothing to suggest that there is a god, but yes, a single all powerful entity sounds perfectly reasonable' ?

rhext

AidanR wrote:

You haven't actually bothered reading a word of what I've written have you?

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm not even arguing that he does exist. The nearest I have come is to state that I believe that he does. This is not a viewpoint that I seek to impose on anyone else.

I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

- The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.
- Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy.
- Not believing there is a God = believing there is no God (for all intents and purposes*).
- Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.


*I have doubts - many Christians do. Call me an agnosic theist if you will

I think we require that you confess how stupid you've been and renounce your religious beliefs on the forum: nothing else will do, I'm afraid. :-)

One Man And His Bike

rhext wrote:

AidanR wrote:

You haven't actually bothered reading a word of what I've written have you?

I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I'm not even arguing that he does exist. The nearest I have come is to state that I believe that he does. This is not a viewpoint that I seek to impose on anyone else.

I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

- The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.
- Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy.
- Not believing there is a God = believing there is no God (for all intents and purposes*).
- Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.


*I have doubts - many Christians do. Call me an agnosic theist if you will

I think we require that you confess how stupid you've been and renounce your religious beliefs on the forum: nothing else will do, I'm afraid. :-)

Not even a damn good flogging with one of each religions Holy books?

pb21

MattC59 wrote:

I have a question for those who do believe in god, and I don't intend this in any disrespectful way:

At what point in your life did you subscribe to the idea of god, and what was it that convinced you that there is an all powerful entity, dispite a complete lack of anything to suggest that there is a god ?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is what made you think, 'there's nothing to suggest that there is a god, but yes, a single all powerful entity sounds perfectly reasonable' ?

I started to think it the last couple of years, why was there a big bang? Before that, being a physicist, I went along with the notion there is no god.

I don’t believe in a god as such, more just don’t like the self righteous militant atheists and the Dawkins followers who ironically like to go around preaching.

bianchimoon

I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

- The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.
- Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy.
- Not believing there is a God = believing there is no God (for all intents and purposes*).
- Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.


ferchrisake man, you are making your own definitions of 'Faith', not recognised by the wider world.. key faith into google and hope it don't blow your hippy noodle, does the thought of an afternoon on wiki ' fkin' pedia, might enlighten you, frighten you (thanks tim minchin) fFaith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved. being an atheist is not a position of faith plain and simple fact and no matter how many times you say it - it won't alter the fact

pb21

faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled
[feyth] Show IPA

–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

A position of there is no god Is a belief not based on proof, therefore is faith?

And just in case you need it

be·lief   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled
[bih-leef] Show IPA

–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

ddraver

AidanR wrote:

You haven't actually bothered reading a word of what I've written have you?

-Just in advance - A hissy fit does nt count as a scientific argument either

I am going to try this one more time. The points I have been arguing are:

- The question of whether God exists or not is not a scientific one.

Why?

- Atheism is not science. It is a philosophy

Disagree - Atheism is the absence of a philosophy

- Not believing there is a God = believing there is no God (for all intents and purposes*)

Agreed, same sentence reworded

- Believing there is no God is as much a belief as believing there is a God. Neither position is one of knowledge; both are positions of faith.

But neither does this mean that there is a god/spag monster/celestial teapot. However applying rational thought suggests that there is not. Given the knowledge can only be an accumulation of facts, and there are no facts suggest there is a god, rational thought concludes that there is no god.