Atheist

[Ed209]

that's an easy one.

No evidence for god, therefore there is no god. Science works from 'what is', not what might be guessed at but which lacks all evidence.

No one thinks their mum is a prostitute just because it's not been proven that she's not. Using no different logic, there cannot be a god.

[lendan]

love this debate.

Personally, when I left primary school I realised that fairy tales were not true!

This is my view in a very simple way

[eFestivals]

Nah, that's not proof. That's just inference. Proof is absolute and unquestionable. Inference is just reaching a logical conclusion, albeit a possibly incorrect one. no evidence does not imply no existence. (although the reverse statement is true. no existence does imply no evidence. Very different logical statements though).

Science certainly has not *proved* God doesn't exist.

And no one has proved that your mum is not a hooker - and yet (presumably) no one thinks she's a hooker.

Religion only gets to hold up against science because of the DIFFERENT approach some people take towards it compared to how they approach all other things, in the exact way you've outlined here.

No one thinks your mum is a hooker, because there's no evidence that she is. Likewise no one should be thinking there's a god, because there's no evidence that there is.

I didn't say there was proof of there being no god - but there is a logical case for there being no god. People simply have to apply the same logic as they do to other things.

God only exists because of the double standards of the scared. Your old man hammered home the words "do not deny your God", and that's also been hammered home to many others - me included until I wised up to the scam.

[W.W.J.D]

God doesn't care if you believe in him, he still loves you.

[eFestivals]

God doesn't care if you believe in him, he still loves you.

really? That's not what Christian teaching says.

That says that only believers are welcomed into his house, the rest are told to fuck off.

[Ed209]

And no one has proved that your mum is not a hooker - and yet (presumably) no one thinks she's a hooker.

Religion only gets to hold up against science because of the DIFFERENT approach some people take towards it compared to how they approach all other things, in the exact way you've outlined here.

No one thinks your mum is a hooker, because there's no evidence that she is. Likewise no one should be thinking there's a god, because there's no evidence that there is.

I didn't say there was proof of there being no god - but there is a logical case for there being no god. People simply have to apply the same logic as they do to other things.

God only exists because of the double standards of the scared. Your old man hammered home the words "do not deny your God", and that's also been hammered home to many others - me included until I wised up to the scam.

[AcademicPistol]

There is great stigma attached to religion no matter how many logical and reasonable repsonses you give to delusional religionists they always ended playing the offended card because when it comes down to it they don't like being told that everything they have based there life on might not be true.

[AcademicPistol]

God doesn't care if you believe in him, he still loves you.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

There is great stigma attached to religion no matter how many logical and reasonable repsonses you give to delusional religionists they always ended playing the offended card because when it comes down to it they don't like being told that everything they have based there life on might not be true.

[AcademicPistol]

The thing is, it works in both ways. I love the fact I'm able to use this phrase in this discussion, but there's a very holier than thou attitude operated by certain atheists, or people who don't believe, which is evident looking through this thread. It's obviously operated by religious people as well, but it's a shame it's held at all, because it prohibits intelligent discussion about it.

[eFestivals]

Sure, but *Proof* has a very specific meaning in science, maths and logic. If Bamber wants to use science as his basis then he has to stick to its terminology. There is no proof.

It's not 'unequivocal proof' but there's ample proof by the normal criteria that everyone uses for all other things - including scientists when reaching a scientific conclusion.

The only reason that religionists demand that questioners change the basis of their consideration to be nothing less than unequivocal proof - not the 'scientific proof' they say when meaning unequivocal proof - is because it's science that is undermining religious belief, and it's an easy cop-out to chuck it back on the questioner in that way.

But what's missing from this is that science is not attempting to demolish religion, it does not have religion as its target; it only has truth as its target. It just so happens that truth has been able to prove so many of the religious claims of the past as false, which has made religion see science as the enemy.

In the interests of equality and balance, if religionists wants science to disprove god then they should be equally willing to prove him - which they refuse to do (because they can't, and even more to the point, KNOW they can't). They can't prove him, or anything of him.

So - as nothing can be (scientifically) proven either way - the logical conclusion is that there is nothing to be proven, and the concept ceases to exist except in people's memories, god ceases to exist in everything but imagination.

A scientific deduction like that is to be believed as true until such time as other evidence causes need for a reconsideration. What are you thinking 'scientific proof' to be that's different to that?

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I don't think there is really anyone putting up any intelligent pro-religion comments.

[Ed209]

It's not 'unequivocal proof' but there's ample proof by the normal criteria that everyone uses for all other things - including scientists when reaching a scientific conclusion.

The only reason that religionists demand that questioners change the basis of their consideration to be nothing less than unequivocal proof - not the 'scientific proof' they say when meaning unequivocal proof - is because it's science that is undermining religious belief, and it's an easy cop-out to chuck it back on the questioner in that way.

But what's missing from this is that science is not attempting to demolish religion, it does not have religion as its target; it only has truth as its target. It just so happens that truth has been able to prove so many of the religious claims of the past as false, which has made religion see science as the enemy.

In the interests of equality and balance, if religionists wants science to disprove god then they should be equally willing to prove him - which they refuse to do (because they can't, and even more to the point, KNOW they can't). They can't prove him, or anything of him.

So - as nothing can be (scientifically) proven either way - the logical conclusion is that there is nothing to be proven, and the concept ceases to exist except in people's memories, god ceases to exist in everything but imagination.

A scientific deduction like that is to be believed as true until such time as other evidence causes need for a reconsideration. What are you thinking 'scientific proof' to be that's different to that?

[eFestivals]

I come from a maths and logic viewpoint though.

And so do I. Perhaps you might start applying it?

You (hypothetically), a scientist, heat a tin of beans at your gaff in the USA. I shout at you from this side of that pond that you're only able to successfully heat that tin of beans because I'm waving a leaf in the air in my office.

You think it highly unlikely to be true, but you give me the benefit of the doubt and so politely ask me to prove it to you. I say I'm not going to, but you can't prove otherwise.

Do you now say that you have to conclude I might have something, and start testing leaf waving to try and prove it? I doubt it.

I say "hang on - it's me, just me, that has to be waving the leaf. No other person can wave the leaf with the same effect. But I'm not going to wave the leaf for you".

Do you now go thru your life passing on that it might be the case that me waving a leaf is why you can heat beans, or do you treat it with the concept it deserves and say "you offered nothing and therefore there is nothing"?

The answer is of course rationally and mathematically and logically that 'nothing'. Until there is something there is only nothing.

Care to show me the 'something' of the claims of a god?

[Joe-]

Edited May 22, 2012 by Joe-

[AcademicPistol]

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about the actual debate, I'm talking about the way in which it's approached and handled. Even throughout this thread, there's comments which are massively belittling (and arguably pointless) without actually seeking to add anything further.

[Ed209]

And so do I. Perhaps you might start applying it?

You (hypothetically), a scientist, heat a tin of beans at your gaff in the USA. I shout at you from this side of that pond that you're only able to successfully heat that tin of beans because I'm waving a leaf in the air in my office.

You think it highly unlikely to be true, but you give me the benefit of the doubt and so politely ask me to prove it to you. I say I'm not going to, but you can't prove otherwise.

Do you now say that you have to conclude I might have something, and start testing leaf waving to try and prove it? I doubt it.

I say "hang on - it's me, just me, that has to be waving the leaf. No other person can wave the leaf with the same effect. But I'm not going to wave the leaf for you".

Do you now go thru your life passing on that it might be the case that me waving a leaf is why you can heat beans, or do you treat it with the concept it deserves and say "you offered nothing and therefore there is nothing"?

The answer is of course rationally and mathematically and logically that 'nothing'. Until there is something there is only nothing.

Care to show me the 'something' of the claims of a god?

[eFestivals]

Unless I can show a counter example whereby I heat my beans without you waving a leaf, then mathematically and logically I cant concretely say you're full of shit. However if I do heat my beans and I know you haven't waved your leaf I have *proved* that you had nothing to do with it and exposed you as a bullshitter.

nah, that only gets to show that you didn't know I waving the leaf. I was refusing to cooperate with you, so you couldn't know otherwise.

Guess what? I've created a ridiculous scenario where you have to give my leaf waving the same credence as you do any god idea.

But will you? Nope. And so the bias and not scientific approach of your thinking is shown.

I hate these convoluted arguments with you

It's pissing you off when I'm giving you back the same level of ridiculous ideas.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Ok personally I am not intentionally trying to belittle religion that's just an accidental outcome.

How do you think it should be handled? I think people who don't believe in god should be free to express why they don't without worrying if they offend religionists, their views don't offend most logical atheists.

[AcademicPistol]

$hit just got real!

[AcademicPistol]

Nah, I didn't mean you personally.

I think it can be discussed without criticising people personally, for believing or not believing. I think it's the concepts which should be criticised and analysed, rather than the followers of them.

[Kyelo]

Every god that has every been written down can be disproven, not just by science but by analysing the texts they are in(The Bible etc). They are so full of errors and contradictions there is just no chance.

Now the general concept of a god can NEVER and will never be proven to be false by science. You cannot disprove something that has never been shown to exist. We all know blue apples and Santa don't exist but they cannot be 100% demonstrated to be false, impossible.

So can the Christian god be shown as false? Yes. Can god in general? No.

*I'm atheist btw!

Edited May 22, 2012 by Kyelo

[AcademicPistol]

Every god that has every been written down can be disproven, not just by science but by analysing the texts they are in(The Bible etc). They are so full of errors and contradictions there is just no chance.

Now the general concept of a god can NEVER and will never be proven to be false by science. You cannot disprove something that has never been shown to exist. We all know blue apples and Santa don't exist but they cannot be 100% demonstrated to be false, impossible.

So can the Christian god be shown as false? Yes. Can god in general? No.

*I'm atheist btw!

Edited May 22, 2012 by AcademicPistol

[Ed209]

all you would have proven is that at that particular time, Neil waving a leaf had nothing to do with it. Any other time might have been down to Neil and his leaf ...

[W.W.J.D]

If god is real why did he/she make me an Atheist.

That's the sort of arguement you've resorted to.