chorba Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 For god's sake, here we go again. .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 What logic? Can you prove the non existence of god? The number of times I've had to explain that you CANNOT prove a negative... Lack of proof is not proof of lack, but when you cannot find any evidence at all to suggest that a hypothesis is correct, you should assume that it isn't and think of a better hypothesis. God doesn't exist because I don't see it? Far more than simply can't see it. Can't measure it any way, can't find a single shred of evidence to support the idea. I can't see Brazil from where I am. Therefore it doesn't exist. You can't see Atlantis either, a magical island that rises above the waves to greet a few special people (not you though). Do you now believe that Atlantis exists? You can't prove that it doesn't and that's the argument you're using to justify a belief in god. So anyway, religion is belief based on faith, not only is evidence not required, looking for such evidence is against the tenets of the religion. Atheism is a belief based on a rational analysis of the available data, evidence is desired and if god starts talking in a great voice from the sky then that evidence will be welcomed by atheists who'll be happy to revise their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 What logic? Can you prove the non existence of god? You can't prove a negative. You could argue that Brazil doesn't exist because you can't see it, but there is evidence that Brazil exists. You'd have to ignore that some people have seen Brazil, and they can take photos of Brazil, and they can bring things back from Brazil. Then you could accept or reject this evidence, say "I still do not believe Brazil exists", but the case has been made. Nobody has yet shown any evidence of God, and thus it is fair to say that the conclusion leads to there being no God. Science has gradually pushed him further and further back until the only natural stance you can take now is to believe in him out of a deep feeling but without evidence, which has been the only sensible position since the enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 I don't believe in god. If you want to, that's fine. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 I'm not generalising. You don't need to be religious to be a fundamentalist. Care to explain what a non-fundamentalist a'theist would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 I don't believe in the three headed, donkey arsed dwarf that eats babies, and I will fight for that non-belief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 The number of times I've had to explain that you CANNOT prove a negative... here's a negative- 5 is not equal to 4 easily provable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 here's a negative- 5 is not equal to 4 easily provable not a negative in that sense, sorry to wee on your bonfire. Those are two things that exist, therefore two positives. You are proving something similar to a five bedroom house does not have the same number of bedrooms as a four bed house. I am sure someone else will word that much better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 ......... Atheism is a belief based on a rational analysis of the available data, evidence is desired and if god starts talking in a great voice from the sky then that evidence will be welcomed by atheists who'll be happy to revise their opinion. Not if they're half decent rationalists they won't. No one with intelligence, when confronted by a "great voice from the sky" is going to conclude that god is speaking- any number of alternative possible explanations are possible, including someone having rigged up a giant loudspeaker I challenge any atheist to specify a kind of empirical evidence that would convince them that God exists. And I do mean any atheist, up to and including Dawkins, who has made similar comments himself (that if presented with valid evidence of God he would cease to be an atheist, but, to my knowledge, has never specified what would count, to him, as valid evidence) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.