The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Hecate]

Look up ugly in the dictionary Alex. Trust you to think it's your appearance I am commenting on!

That is all.

I will leave you to continue get wound up.....so much fun!!!

[Thee Alex]

I will not be giving it the time of day.

Then, half an hour later....

Look up ugly in the dictionary Alex. Trust you to think it's your appearance I am commenting on!

That is all.

I will leave you to continue get wound up.....so much fun!!!

If you're going to keep posting even after you've said you won't, at least give it some point by answering the question

[Dashingmajor]

Folk who are overly concerned with getting masses of negative rep should subscribe, and see who is leaving it
I mean £2 is not a lot, and it's clear that you're using the site on a regular basis, so it would be good for you to contribute to it's upkeep.

[Thee Alex]

I guess Kate's lack of an answer means she doesn't have one. Just as I thought.

[GobbHayte]

Originally Posted by GaryM

There's no evidence for the non-existence of anything, there couldn't be, so that isn't an argument in favour of the existence of god, or if it is then it equally supports anything that can be imagined. If someone believes in the existence of gods simply because they can't be disproved, then aren't they compelled by the same logic to believe in fairies, flying spaghetti monsters and Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)?

I didn't say it was possible to provide evidence for something not existing, it's the atheists in this thread who keep claiming that science has proven religion
wrong, not me. Yes, science has provided explanations for things that were previously attributed to supernatural forces, but it has not proven the non-existence of god.
Your point about fairies, flying spaghetti monsters etc.-see my point about the tooth fairy. There are countless people who have had religious or spiritual experiences, the same cannot be said for the tooth fairy.

Dashingmajor, i never said at any point that anyone should worship anything. I said early on in this thread that i have the same opinions about organised religion as most atheists do, that it's a load of bollocks used to control people's thought and behaviour and keep them mindlessly conforming.

I just don't like seeing people lump together people who have their own ideas about god/spirituality/mysticism/the occult with people who think they'll go to heaven if they thoughtlessly follow some rules from some out of date, badly translated book. It's like saying that everyone with political beliefs is the same as the sheep who commit or allow atrocities in the name of communism or fascism.

Alex, I'm not grasping at any half-baked theory, these are my own ideas and my own thought patterns, not something i got from a book, let's see an example of you thinking for yourself. As far as i can see all you have is quotes and statistics to back yourself up.

Atheism is a personal choice, if that's the way you want to see the world, fine, if that's what makes you happy, but that's all it is, a choice to view the world in a particular way. It is not fact, it is not scientifically proven, it has not renderred other ways of looking at the world obsolete.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

Alex, I'm not grasping at any half-baked theory, these are my own ideas and my own thought patterns, not something i got from a book,

Beyond some vague notion that 'god is everything and nothing, maaaaaaaaan', I've not really got any more clue of what your 'ideas' actually are than I did 20 pages back.

As I'm assuming Mrs GobbHayte isn't going to answer the question previously asked, I'll present it to you -

Explain how belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless, is any different from there being no 'god' at all....

I look forward to your answer, assuming your 'theory' has been in the oven long enough for you to be able to provide one

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

let's see an example of you thinking for yourself.

Please refer to the last 40 something pages for numerous examples.

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

As far as i can see all you have is quotes

Yeah, quotes from other people who have arrived at the same conclusion for very compelling reasons.

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

and statistics to back yourself up.

Uh oh! I've only got STATISTICS to back me up! Cripes! You'll be saying 'You've only got FACTS!' next in an attempt to prove how much you've outmanoeuvred me!!

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

Atheism is a personal choice, if that's the way you want to see the world, fine, if that's what makes you happy, but that's all it is, a choice to view the world in a particular way. It is not fact, it is not scientifically proven, it has not renderred other ways of looking at the world obsolete.

It's not a 'personal choice' any more than believing the sky to be blue is a 'personal choice' IMO, and it's certainly not about making anyone 'happy' as it's based purely on observation and cold, hard facts. If it's any kind of 'choice to view the world in a particular way' then it's decided to view the world in light of reality rather than some kind of vague, spiritual, claptrap. It has substantially more evidence of being the case than religious belief does and it absolutely renders many other ways of looking at the world obsolete.

Anyway, that question. Going to answer? Or will you do a huffy runner like Kate did?

[xdavidx]

Originally Posted by Dashingmajor

Folk who are overly concerned with getting masses of negative rep should subscribe, and see who is leaving it
I mean £2 is not a lot, and it's clear that you're using the site on a regular basis, so it would be good for you to contribute to it's upkeep.

I'll save everyone the bother

IT'S ME, I AM GIVING YOU ALL NEGATIVE REP, I HATE YOU

[GobbHayte]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

Beyond some vague notion that 'god is everything and nothing, maaaaaaaaan', I've not really got any more clue of what your 'ideas' actually are than I did 20 pages back.

As I'm assuming Mrs GobbHayte isn't going to answer the question previously asked, I'll present it to you -

Explain how belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless, is any different from there being no 'god' at all....

I look forward to your answer, assuming your 'theory' has been in the oven long enough for you to be able to provide one




Please refer to the last 40 something pages for numerous examples.




Yeah, quotes from other people who have arrived at the same conclusion for very compelling reasons.




Uh oh! I've only got STATISTICS to back me up! Cripes! You'll be saying 'You've only got FACTS!' next in an attempt to prove how much you've outmanoeuvred me!!



It's not a 'personal choice' any more than believing the sky to be blue is a 'personal choice' IMO, and it's certainly not about making anyone 'happy' as it's based purely on observation and cold, hard facts. If it's any kind of 'choice to view the world in a particular way' then it's decided to view the world in light of reality rather than some kind of vague, spiritual, claptrap. It has substantially more evidence of being the case than religious belief does and it absolutely renders many other ways of looking at the world obsolete.

Anyway, that question. Going to answer? Or will you do a huffy runner like Kate did?

You provide evidence for the non existence of god, i'll tell you what i believe in.
Go on, prove a negative, i dare you.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

Go on, prove a negative, i dare you.

1-3=-2

Anyway, now we've got 'proving a negative' out of the way, I assume (by your attempts to divert attention away from the rather easy question I've asked you) that you've no answer?

The onus isn't on science to prove the existence or otherwise of 'god' - that rests ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the 'faithful'.

Even if your version of 'god' exists you still have to answer the following -


Explain how belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless, is any different from there being no 'god' at all....

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

Go on, prove a negative, i dare you.

It is possible to prove a negative to the satisfaction of most science (excluding mathematics).
If you have a box sitting on your lap and someone tells you that there is a iron bar in it, you can hypothesise from the weight of the box that there is no iron bar inside. Opening it and looking would prove you right that there was no iron bar in the box. Ergo you have proved a negative.
This proof would be sufficient for most science, which on the balance of probabilities would accept that the iron bar didn't "vanish" when the box was opened.
(before someone brings up Schrodinger's Cat, that was an analogy and does not describe how things work on the scale of anything larger than the subatomic)
God doesn't fit into this though. Why? Because no-one will define him clearly enough and they constantly use special pleading to get out of tricky situations.
For example, if God is defined as necessarily omnipotent then we can safely "disprove" the idea of God. However, the counterargument is (usually) to move the goal posts and redefine omnipotence or claim that God exists outside logic (which would make some of his actions strange).
If a tight enough set of definitions as to what God is is provided by a believer then, yes, God can be potentially disproven.

[Mike - Indi Rev]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

1-3=-2

Anyway, now we've got 'proving a negative' out of the way, I assume (by your attempts to divert attention away from the rather easy question I've asked you) that you've no answer?

The onus isn't on science to prove the existence or otherwise of 'god' - that rests ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the 'faithful'.

Even if your version of 'god' exists you still have to answer the following -


Explain how belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless, is any different from there being no 'god' at all....

Ok since no-one else seems willing to do it, I'll offer you a counter argument.

Firstly, the onus isn't actually on anyone here. If something was on trial, then yes. But in a discussion where one person is stating what they believe and the other person is accusing them of being wrong, there isn't really any onus on anyway. If you were desperate to place this responsibility on anyone I'd actually say it's on the aggressor, in this case yourself. Now I don't mean aggressor as in you're being aggressive, simply that you are the one who is casting doubt upon the other person's statement. It is up to you to show them why they are wrong.

I think in this case what makes it difficult is that it really is practically impossible to logically prove that something cannot exist. Especially when the 'believer' isn't actually maintaining that proof FOR existence is necessary for them to continue believing. What really would have solved this whole issue (and what I personally would have said if I was religious and defending my case here) is if whoever started defending the religious side had simply said, "I believe in God. I accept that it is possible, even probable, that there is no God and that I am completely wrong but I choose to maintain my faith". As far as I can see there is no way to legitimately arguing with that, simply because 'having faith' intrinsically implies that there is no evidence required. That's why it's called believing.

Right, an attempt to offer an asnwer to your long-unanswered question.


Explain how belief in a 'god' that is formless, powerless, and pointless, is any different from there being no 'god' at all....

The difference here is quite a simple one. It is the difference between there being 'higher' forms of being; and there not being any 'higher' forms of being. It is also the difference between there being some greater ultimate cause to life and everything in the universe (whether it be a conscious force in a creator role or an unconscious force as the original cause); and there being no cause to anything, leaving the conclusion that we as human beings are alone and, to use a more dramatic word, Godless.


I really don't feel that strongly about this topic and am just chirping in as devils advocate. Feel free to give me some counter points to what I've said as I'm sure there are many good ones (I can think of a couple myself!) and I'll look forward to reading over what I'm confident will be a well thought out response.


PS. is it obvious I'm quite desperate to avoid writing an essay I should be working on just now?!

[LesMts]

Quote: