Fed up of non believers

[mjw47]

But I don't believe that it is true, so why should I even want to try to prove that it is? ...you do realise that you've just told me that I have to believe everything that I cannot prove, don't you? :loopy:

 

 

When did I ever say that god does not exist?

 

 

What? From your Humpty Dumpty sources? No thankyou.

 

You really are very funny and the best bit is that you appear totally oblivious to the fact.

 

Look at the fourth word of your reply. :D

 

Absolutely priceless sir, you really are.

 

Did you not say that you were an atheist? Admit I may be wrong on that there are a few of you comics on here and it's hard to keep track.

 

Anyway, if you did say you were then yes, you have by definition stated that. That is the position of atheists, not believing in the existence of God, BELIEVING in fact in the none existence of God, without proof.

 

You regard the Oxford English Dictionary as a 'Humpty Dumpty' source?

 

Would that not make you Humpty Dumpty?

[danot]

The cause of the universe's existence is unknowable, primarily, because we're just a insignificant microorganism within the grand scheme of what we're a part of.

 

Telling someone that they're silly if they believe in a grand creator is like someone telling their other half(or significant other) that they're having doubts as to whether their partner actually does love them like they say they do. How on earth do you convince someone that you love them if they choose to believe the contrary? Do you provide more substantial proof of your love for them?

 

It's all about what you choose to believe, not what you can prove.

[flamingjimmy]

Telling someone that they're silly if they believe in a grand creator is like someone telling their other half(or significant other) that they're having doubts as to whether their partner actually does love them like they say they do.

 

No it isn't.

 

If someone told me they were in love with me despite them never having been nice to me ever, never having met me before, never showed any sign in any way that they care at all, then of course I wouldn't believe them.

 

Similarly, if someone told me there was an all powerful being that created the universe despite there being no evidence for the existence of one and no logical argument for one I also wouldn't believe them.

[Lockjaw]

 

Showing yourself up now Lockjaw. There are those that can realise they are wrong and admit defeat gracefully, and then there's you.

 

 

Irony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Were you as mardy as this as a kid? Did you stand in the corner with your bottom lip stuck out and refuse to talk to daddy?

 

You know, the metaphorical equivalent of what you're doing now?

 

See post 494

[mjw47]

Rydo40.

 

As I'm sure you are aware, some theists are charlatans using religion for the purpose of extracting money from the gullible.

 

Others undoubtably have mental issues and are delusional to a disturbing degree.

 

However I have had a lot of contact throughout my life with religious people including family friends, priests, nuns a rabbi and a hindu.

 

Very few, even the professionals have maintained that they know the mind of God. The expression ' God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform' was coined by a theist.

 

On a number of occasions whilst conversing with these people it has entered my head that some of them, who admit to doubt from time to time. do in fact sound more like agnostics than theists.

 

However, as I do not regard myself as the font of all knowledge - as proven by my agnosticism - I have not attempted to persuade any of them to change their description of themselves.

 

To do so would be the height of condescending arrogance in my view, but obviously only in my opinion.

 

The Santa thing is getting silly, it was a terrible analogy in the first place and is becoming daft.

The rather pertinent point between Santa and God is that no one from the very beginning believed it, apart from small children. Every adult understands it was a fairy tale.

 

People are willing to kill and be killed for their belief in various Gods.

 

Mind you, I believe there have been a few dodgy moments during the Christmas sales!

 

Actually the odds don't change at all, it's 50/50. There either is or is not an intelligent creative power.

 

Atheists may wish to believe that the odds are lengthening in their favour the more science advances.

 

The theists however will simply say, 'Well if that's how God decided to go about it then that's the way it is.'

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread it was a Professor of Physics who was also a Catholic priest who came up with the 'Big Bang' theory.

 

If he could hold true to his faith whilst other scientists( many of them not as eminent as him ) say the opposite then I feel justified in hanging on to my doubts, and continuing to believe that the jury is still out.

 

Incidentally, in addition to coming up with the 'Big Bang' theory he was the first to propose the 'Expanding Universe' theory, usually incorrectly credited to Edwin Hubble.

 

It should really be the Le Maitre Space telescope, But then he was Belgian and Hubble an American.

[Ryedo40]

The rather pertinent point between Santa and God is that no one from the very beginning believed it, apart from small children. Every adult understands it was a fairy tale.

 

Just as God is claimed to want to remain hidden, Santa doesn't want people, unless he really likes them, to believe he is real; making adults believe he is a fairytale.

 

People are willing to kill and be killed for their belief in various Gods.

 

Yes, they're crazy.

 

Actually the odds don't change at all, it's 50/50. There either is or is not an intelligent creative power.

 

The more you understand about reality and the way the world operates, the odds do change. God, as often claimed, is far more than just an intelligent creative power: God is a controlling power, God is a personal being, God performs miracles, God answers prayers, God punishes and so on. None of which hold up to scrutiny. The odds do change. So much so that you can discard that God just as you can discard any other nonsense.

 

Atheists may wish to believe that the odds are lengthening in their favour the more science advances.

 

The theists however will simply say, 'Well if that's how God decided to go about it then that's the way it is.'

 

Well it does seem that the more we advance, and the more we understand, these Gods that people believe in become limited in power; so much so that they can only produce an image of themselves on a piece of burnt toast - or so limited that there is simply no reason to believe they exist in the first place.

 

And yes, just as I've done with Santa, that's the rationalising game that theists like to play so they can continue believing. It gets beyond ridiculous.

 

We will probably never truly know how the universe began(if it began). But pulling intelligent beings out of our ass and believing and claiming it true - without a scrap of evidence - isn't the way to go.

[ARandomName]

PLEASE DO NOT POST IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE PEOPLE IM TALKING ABOUT

 

If you will only listen to people who agree with you, you will never be presented with anything new to contemplate.

[Cyclone]

You really are very funny and the best bit is that you appear totally oblivious to the fact.

 

Look at the fourth word of your reply. :D

 

Absolutely priceless sir, you really are.

 

Did you not say that you were an atheist? Admit I may be wrong on that there are a few of you comics on here and it's hard to keep track.

 

Anyway, if you did say you were then yes, you have by definition stated that. That is the position of atheists, not believing in the existence of God, BELIEVING in fact in the none existence of God, without proof.

Okay, you're not funny anymore.

 

YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

 

Learn some basic logic and then the discussion can resume on an adult level. But whilst-ever you don't understand this and keep asking for impossible things you're just wasting everyone's time.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2014 at 14:38 ----------

 

The cause of the universe's existence is unknowable, primarily, because we're just a insignificant microorganism within the grand scheme of what we're a part of.

 

Telling someone that they're silly if they believe in a grand creator is like someone telling their other half(or significant other) that they're having doubts as to whether their partner actually does love them like they say they do. How on earth do you convince someone that you love them if they choose to believe the contrary? Do you provide more substantial proof of your love for them?

 

It's all about what you choose to believe, not what you can prove.

 

Not if an adult believes in Santa or God.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2014 at 14:41 ----------

 

The Santa thing is getting silly, it was a terrible analogy in the first place and is becoming daft.

The rather pertinent point between Santa and God is that no one from the very beginning believed it, apart from small children. Every adult understands it was a fairy tale.

It's not even an analogy, it's just another myth. One that for some reason you feel happy to dismiss as "not true", whilst another you feel the need to say "I don't know", despite the two being entirely equivalent.

 

People are willing to kill and be killed for their belief in various Gods.

So what?

 

Actually the odds don't change at all, it's 50/50. There either is or is not an intelligent creative power.

Two options, but that doesn't imply equal possibility of both options being correct.

It's 100/0 in favour of no god.

 

Atheists may wish to believe that the odds are lengthening in their favour the more science advances.

 

The theists however will simply say, 'Well if that's how God decided to go about it then that's the way it is.'

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread it was a Professor of Physics who was also a Catholic priest who came up with the 'Big Bang' theory.

 

If he could hold true to his faith whilst other scientists( many of them not as eminent as him ) say the opposite then I feel justified in hanging on to my doubts, and continuing to believe that the jury is still out.

Appeal to authority again.

[danot]

No it isn't.

 

If someone told me they were in love with me despite them never having been nice to me ever, never having met me before, never showed any sign in any way that they care at all, then of course I wouldn't believe them.

 

Similarly, if someone told me there was an all powerful being that created the universe despite there being no evidence for the existence of one and no logical argument for one I also wouldn't believe them.

it's extremely unlikely that your other half has never met you though, isn't it Jimmy? Unless you're into mail order brides!!

[mjw47]

Irony.

 

 

 

 

 

See post 494

 

No, not projecting even a little bit. According to my old mum I was the least mardy kid ever.

 

Were it not for my ( occasional ) extremely bad temper, and inability to suffer fools gladly, which was apparent at a very young age, I could have been described as a little angel.

 

The nub of the disagreement between you and I was your refusal to accept my claim that I was an agnostic, and insist, in your rather self regarding manner, that you knew better than I as to how to describe my own beliefs.

 

You and your back up PMing posse lost that argument when I introduced Professor Rowe's definition, which I pointed out described my position to a tee.

 

It was at that point that you and your motley crew should have called it a day and withdrawn with at least a modicum of dignity intact.

 

Unfortunately for you, it apparently isn't in your nature to be logical about things you attach undue importance to and become obsessive about.

 

To any neutral unbiased person it is perfectly obvious that Professor Rowe's life and career make him perfectly qualified to define the positions of the various beliefs.

 

We are talking about his ability to describe the positions adopted, and beliefs held, in matters that he thought about, discussed, and wrote papers about virtually every day of his working life.

 

We are not talking about his personal conclusions and beliefs, merely his ability to describe things within his area of expertise.

 

In fact the two beliefs which he has held in his life I disagree with. Evangelical Christian to Atheist both are beliefs which I cannot agree with.

 

However, the only reason I feel comfortable disagreeing with such an eminent man is because he can't PROVE either belief.

 

When it comes to describing the alternative beliefs however I wouldn't be as arrogant as to think that I could do any better.

 

 

I invited you and other posters to produce an equally qualified person to refute the definition.

 

No one managed to do that and therefore I must assume that some frantic Googling took place all to no avail.

 

You have chosen to take the hump and your mates are getting sillier by the minute.