God & Falsifiability (discussion moved from other thread)

CDfm

-- MOD NOTE -- Discussion moved from wrong thread --

axer wrote: »

I think people that believe in a god are either afraid (of there being nothing after death so they need hope even if it is false hope), lazy minded (too lazy to think about it so go along with the flock usually because they were brought up as a believer) or illogical (considering some people use logic for the most simple of things - how they can throw logic away for the biggest things is beyond me).

Axer -thats because us believers look for proof from you which you stubbornly refuse to provide.

No atheist has ever prooved scientifically that God does not exist. The most you can expect is to be told to read a prejudiced book.

Of course, the standard atheist reply is we cant test because we dont believe and then some or we dont have the science yet.

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Axer -thats because us believers look for proof from you which you stubbornly refuse to provide.

Theres no evidence that some sort of superbeing didn't start the ball rolling just as theres no evidence that said superbeing is still around or has been around since the big bang. If you look at the world clearly and honestly then there is no reason to believe that there is something pulling the strings. There is a logical explantation for everything,that is a FACT.

What i'm trying to say is if there ever was a god then theres no reason to belive it's still around or to worship it.

Sorry,this is for another thread

sink

CDfm wrote: »

No atheist has ever prooved scientifically that God does not exist. The most you can expect is to be told to read a prejudiced book.

Essentially if god exists he is not directly detectable and he has no detectable impact upon the physical reality we can perceive. The existence of god is indistinguishable from the non-existence of god and he might as well not exist from our perspective. So while you look for proof that god does not exist (which wouldn't exist even if he does in fact not exist), we look for positive evidence for his existence and find none.

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

Axer -thats because us believers look for proof from you which you stubbornly refuse to provide.

No atheist has ever prooved scientifically that God does not exist. The most you can expect is to be told to read a prejudiced book.

Of course, the standard atheist reply is we cant test because we dont believe and then some or we dont have the science yet.

IMO, it's more to do with the lack of a proper definition from theists as to what they actually believe in.

What is a God?

I think you'll find standard theist answer to that is to be told to read a prejudiced book

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Axer -thats because us believers look for proof from you which you stubbornly refuse to provide.

I am waiting for proof that there is a god too. The difference between me and you is I am not willing to commit to something so illogical without proof but I will not say without a doubt there is no god - just that at the moment it seems highly highly unlikely. Every time I have asked for proof it always ends up with "have faith".

It is a silly argument to look for proof for the inexistence of something before you believe it doesnt exist since it is far easier to prove the existence of something.

CDfm wrote: »

No atheist has ever prooved scientifically that God does not exist. The most you can expect is to be told to read a prejudiced book.

Ahhem...the bible?

OP: you see, you cannot argue with illogicality.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

IMO, it's more to do with the lack of a proper definition from theists as to what they actually believe in.

What is a God?

I think you'll find standard theist answer to that is to be told to read a prejudiced book

Less of the theist - its a perjorative term that sounds like a Gene Roddenberry race of individuals.

In answering your question.What is infinity. Does it exist? How do you measure it at a fixed point in time?

JC 2K3

I don't understand how that question relates to what I asked. If can explain how it does, then perhaps I can attempt an answer.

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

Less of the theist - its a perjorative term that sounds like a Gene Roddenberry race of individuals.

In answering your question.What is infinity. Does it exist? How do you measure it at a fixed point in time?

If people can use the word athiest theres nothing wrong with saying theist.

God and infinity are not comparable.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't understand how that question relates to what I asked. If can explain how it does, then perhaps I can attempt an answer.

Infinity is a concept we accept and accept the universe is expanding in theoretical physics and maths.Infinity continues for ever over space and time or so we are told.Can you test it?

In theory black holes exist -but if you went near one it would have to kill you!! I have seen an alternative argument to black holes not existing that is equally valid.Can you test it?

If you say you can create a black hole in a lab -it proves nothing only that the lab experiment worked.It doesnt prove that the universe works that way.

By definition - God to believers is a concept/being/power without earthly/physical form. So if natural science tests things with matter by definition it cant test God.So the God test becomes a self fulfilling prophesy just like the lab experiment.

So as an atheist all you can say is you don't believe in God because you cant run a test.

JC 2K3

I think the concept of a God and the concept of infinity can be very relevant to one another depending on the context of the discussion. However, I'm unsure if CDfm's question is a retort implying that I "believe in infinity" without having proof of its existence, or if it's based on preconceptions about where further discussion might lead.

EDIT: Based on the above post, I see it was the former.

Mickeroo

CDfm wrote: »

So if natural science tests things with matter by definition it cant test God.

Exactly.

I mean infinity is not comparable in that there's no denying it exists depending on the concept,for example if you're talking about numbers then you can keep counting infinitley. If you talk about the universe being infinite then there's no way of knowing.

axer

Infinity is an abstraction - that is all. It only exists in maths.

Do people worship this abstraction?

We have religion because people are unable to cope with the idea that we have an inability to understand inifinity e.g. being dead for infinity. It is fear, a lazy mind, illogicality or all of the above as I mentioned earlier.

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

By definition - God to believers is a concept/being/power without earthly/physical form. So if natural science tests things with matter by definition it cant test God.So the God test becomes a self fulfilling prophesy just like the lab experiment.

So basically, your argument is that the existence of God is an axiom, a self evident proposition.

The problem with this is that it's still not well defined. Infinity is well defined in different ways depending on the context in which it is used. Something recurring without cessation is an intelligible concept and one definition of infinity.

The question is, what basis do you have for asserting that God is an axiom?

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So basically, your argument is that the existence of God is an axiom, a self evident proposition.

The problem with this is that it's still not well defined. Infinity is well defined in different ways depending on the context in which it is used. Something recurring without cessation is an intelligible concept and one definition of infinity.

The question is, what basis do you have for asserting that God is an axiom?

Its not as simple as that.

But the logic is there. To me its cool whether or not you believe.It doesnt bother me either way.It doesnt make you a bad person.In the same way his non belief doesnt make OP a bad person.

A belief in God is not logical to you. Some people use all kinds of abstract mental gymnastics to explain it as a cultural thingy - memes ,genes whatever. Some atheists then have a bit of namecalling - just like Axer did (and thats not singling out Axer).

My belief doesnt demean you as a person. I might think some atheists obsession with disproving religion is a bit obsessive.Even without a belief in God my inclination would be that on-demand abortion like you have in the Uk is wrong. Other atheists have political reasons for church attacking - but we never had the winter vomiting bug when the nuns ran the hospitals:D.

So why should anyones atheism really bother me. Your beliefs or lack of them are just as illogical to me as mine are to you. I just accept it.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

Infinity is a concept we accept and accept the universe is expanding in theoretical physics and maths.Infinity continues for ever over space and time or so we are told.Can you test it?

Infinity is a mathematical construct, proved using formal logic. The same logic that tells you two apples and two oranges equals 4 pieces of fruit, without having to conduct tests to prove it. It is not a scientific idea and thus does not require scientific proof. It is a mathematical idea and has been proven mathematically.

CDfm wrote: »

In theory black holes exist -but if you went near one it would have to kill you!! I have seen an alternative argument to black holes not existing that is equally valid.Can you test it?

Black holes have been observed, there is one in the centre of our galaxy.

CDfm wrote: »

If you say you can create a black hole in a lab -it proves nothing only that the lab experiment worked.It doesnt prove that the universe works that way.

Yes it does, because the lab is part of the universe, the same rules apply in the lab as everywhere else. So if something can be proven to happen in a lab it's proof that it can happen anywhere under the right conditions. Science is entirely built on this premise. If your disputing this you are disputing almost everything science has ever given us.

CDfm wrote: »

By definition - God to believers is a concept/being/power without earthly/physical form. So if natural science tests things with matter by definition it cant test God.So the God test becomes a self fulfilling prophesy just like the lab experiment.

So as an atheist all you can say is you don't believe in God because you cant run a test.

That argument stands credence only if the god is deist i.e. does not interact with our physical reality. The god of the bible claims to interact with our physical reality and as such we should be able to observe his impact. I don't believe in a god that interacts with our physical reality because I have seen no evidence for such. In regards to deism I am ignostic.

Calibos

Ultimately all religious people always give the game away at some point that they simply don't have a good enough understanding about what science means or does. It always turns out that one of the reasons for their belief or justification for their belief is based on a misunderstanding or a non understanding of some aspect of science.

I can imagine the thought process. Atheists say they can prove that there is no physical interaction with God and the universe here on earth but they can't know whether he interacts with the universe elsewhere in the universe. Therefor they cannot prove he doesn't exist. (This is where the real leap comes in)..Because I believe it cannot be proven that a God doesn't exist I choose to believe the tales of a primitive bronze age tribe of goat herders from a semi arid land on the east coast of the mediterrainian sea circa 3000-2000 years ago.

I am sorry but like Sink said, the universe obeys the same laws here as it does 15 billion Lightyears away. If you can create a black hole here it does prove you could create one anywhere in the universe because here is no different to any other part of the universe.

Therefor it stands to reason that if we have never found a shread of evidence for a deity physically interacting with matter here. If we have not once ever found that the laws of physics were broken by a deity here, we can conclude it probably didn't happen anywhere else too.

Sure you could say that the lack of proof of interaction is because God is on a 2000 year holiday from miracles, or that its all the gays fault God doesn't talk to us anymore but.......Come on!!

Talking about the uber religious evangelicals here. 2 Things are always certain.
1. They don't have a full enough understanding of science and thus make false assumptions like above.
2. They always had a problem in their backgrounds/pasts and finding Jesus saved them, helped them through it.

IIRC even one of the mods on the Christianity forum who denied he was one of those people who found Christianity after something bad happening in his life turned out to be lying. Wasn't it discovered or certainly some evidence found through a bit of internet detective work that he was probably addicted to Gambling. ie He spent an inordinate amount of time on a gambling forum and was ultimately banned for incessently preaching there about the evils of gambling. Why Gambling in particular. One could conclude because he was an ex Gambler who was cured after finding Jesus. Hey, Whatever helps, don't get me wrong. The problem comes when said person cured of his gambling addiction by a belief in Jesus then wants to ban Gays from Marriage etc, ie wants his beliefs written into the law of the land.

I've a good friend who I purposely avoid discussing religion with. When I first met him I discovered he was an evangelical. Eventually in conversation one day he implied he had a darker past or something dark or traumatic in his past and that Jesus had saved him. Another example of what I am talking about. I want to tell him that Jesus didn't make the changes for the better to his life. He did it all by himself. I want him to be proud of himself and his own strength of character for getting through it. He is a wonderful guy. . He wants to give credit to a non-existent deity instead. I keep my mouth shut though. Don't want to get into a religious arguement with him. Nice thing about this guy though is that he isn't the type to want to impose his beliefs into the laws of the land.

CDfm

So what. I know guys who decided they were atheist after doing science in college.On the other hand I know a GP who despite outside appearances is very religious and has a very great life. His attitude is don't fcuk with a winning formula.

The link you make is tenuous. I suppose the Pope had bad wartime experiences.

So I think sweeping generalizations are just that and bringing down religion to these basic discussions is plain silly.

mickeydevine

CDfm wrote: »

I suppose the Pope had bad wartime experiences.

Er, yes, Hitler lost the war and since he was a member of the Hitler youth, then I bet he needed something else to believe in.;)

axer

CDfm wrote: »

So what. I know guys who decided they were atheist after doing science in college.On the other hand I know a GP who despite outside appearances is very religious and has a very great life. His attitude is don't fcuk with a winning formula.

Religion is not a winning formula. It has been the cause of so much pain, death and destruction all over the world.

What it ultimately comes down to in order to believe in a god is faith. Faith is a strange phenomenon. It has a sort of gullibility to it.

How can people use common sense/rational thought and logic in normal day life and then throw all that out the window just because they cannot get their heads around the idea that maybe we are ourselves - that there are no supernatural powers that control human destiny.

I know it sounds bleak that maybe there is nothing after death. That maybe the only reason why a person died tragically in an accident etc is because they just happened to be there. There is no evidence to suggest any supernatural interference in our lives - not even a hint of evidence. There is only anecdotal evidence which is not proof of anything.

I have no problems with people believing what they want except that at the moment their beliefs affect my life e.g. look at the irish constitution for example, look at the school system giving preference to catholics etc. This is a failure of government that allowed itself to be influenced by religion.

I find it funny when I hear, for example, catholic friends of mine give out about scientology about how crazy, brainwashing they are and how worrying it is that scientology is spreading - that it could take control and have influence in the world. How can those same people believe in the belief structure of christianity and think that the scientologists have crazy beliefs?

CDfm

Mods can you rename this the God and atheist sweeping generalizations here we go again thread.

Yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Thats me sleeping soundly.

Flamed Diving

People have never been able to prove that magic invisible elephants never existed/created the universe in their belly.

So there.

I'm right.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

People have never been able to prove that magic invisible elephants never existed/created the universe in their belly.

So there.

I'm right.

the old we can grow asparagus on Mars so it must be a powerful aphrodisiac logic is doing the rounds again.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

the old we can grow asparagus on Mars so it must be a powerful aphrodisiac logic is doing the rounds again.

The logic of:

No one has ever proved that God does not exist. Therefore God must exist.

Is the worst logic of all. What's worse. People actually die for this logic.

eoin5

Why is there all this discussion on prooving that god does not exist? Its impossible no?

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah the ultimate theist come back, prove god does not exist. It is a non topic from the outset as it involves a complete rejection of logical norms and the attempt by CDFM to establish one rule for one and one rule for everyone else.

Quite the contrary to being a good challenge, this is usually the last refuge of a theist who has realised their argument is totally devoid of all evidence and so tries to turn the onus of proof around to where it does not belong in order to make you admit that there is a possibility that god might exist and you have to accept it.

Fine. We do. I accept it is a possibility. I also accept therefore it is a possibility that the entire universe was created by a band of goblins with heads in every way identical to Granny’s apple pies.

The first question that needs to be answered by the theist is this therefore: If you have no evidence to present FOR a god and no one has evidence to present AGAINST a god, then on what basis do you presume to elevate god above all the other things there is no evidence for or against? If I have to accept the possibility that there is a god then CDFM equally has to accept the possibility of, among other things, goblins with apple pie heads. When a non believer is asking you for evidence THIS is what he is asking you for. The basis for elevating one made up theory over all the other made up theories and declaring it “true”.

The second question that needs to be answered then is “where do you get off?” Our entire social structure is based on only granting credence to theories that are backed up with evidence. Maybe this does not always work, as in the case of our justice system, but it is the best we have. So, where does the theist get off expecting us to follow this social norm in all cases, except where it is not convenient for them?

Take for example the man going to the bank manager for a loan. The bank manager says “Now can you prove you are capable of paying the loan back”. Is the standard response to this “Ahhhh but can you prove I CANT pay it back? If you can not then you must accept the possibility I CAN pay it back”. No, it is not, but in CDFMs little world it would be. In the real world the bank manager would say “Fine, I accept the possibility, but you are not getting the loan and please be so kind as to excuse me while I call security to have you gently removed”.

Take also the example of innocent until proven guilty. Things are not true simply because you can make them up. In CDFMs world this is reversed. If the person can not prove their innocence they are then guilty simply by virtue of having being accused. Just because CDFM can come up with a theory it is therefore true until proven false. In this world therefore we are ALL guilty of ALL murders until each of us can prove other wise. Welcome to CDFMs little world. Thankfully it bears no resemblance to the real world in any way.

No CDFM, it is NOT one rule for you and one rule for everyone else. I would consider it a safe bet that it never will be either. Theories without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

We can grant the possibility there is a god, and I do, but until evidence for such is presented we can reject the idea also. It is possible of course but there is no reason to think it is so. I reject therefore your theory that there is and I therefore reject any other theory or proposition you put forward BASED on gods existence until you present any evidence for the base proposition.

CDfm

eoin5 wrote: »

Why is there all this discussion on prooving that god does not exist? Its impossible no?

Not to these guys they are scientists and research things scientifically.

Reminds me of a story I heard. One Saturday evening after Mass Fr Murphy came accross a man in a lab coat under a street light searching franctically. The good padre stopped to help and asked the man what he had lostand he replied his house key.After an unfruitful search Fr Murphy asked could he remember where he was when he last had the key. The man pointed to some bushes and the priest suggested they search there next to which the man replied "Why , Im a scientist and the light is better here"

The logic is that you reject everything thats not proveable via the natural sciences. Already, knowing such is the sum of their knowledge they resort to a bit of ridicule and challenges and smugly declare their self fulfilling prophesy.

Having exhausted all of their natural factual sciences to explain away their inability to cope with God Beliefs in others and in other cultures resort to memes and genes and stuff to give it a technical sci-babble feel. At this stage,we are all supposed to be impressed that they have applied their scientific brains to the issue and now can do philosophy too. Deadly.

Did you hear the one about the atheist who had a breakdown - he thought his kids first word was Yahweh.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

Not to these guys they are scientists and research things scientifically.

How else do you researching things? spiritually? emotionally?

CDfm wrote: »

Reminds me of a story I heard. One Saturday evening after Mass Fr Murphy came accross a man in a lab coat under a street light searching franctically. The good padre stopped to help and asked the man what he had lostand he replied his house key.After an unfruitful search Fr Murphy asked could he remember where he was when he last had the key. The man pointed to some bushes and the priest suggested they search there next to which the man replied "Why , Im a scientist and the light is better here"

Ahhhhhhhhhh...that is exactly what I am talking about. Why would the priest use comon sense/rational thought/logic to help this scientist find his keys and then throw all that out the window when it comes to big questions. If we were to go by your logic then you cannot disprove that the keys are not under the light thus I should believe they are under the light and continue to search there instead of using rational thought and logic.

CDfm wrote: »

The logic is that you reject everything thats not proveable via the natural sciences. Already, knowing such is the sum of their knowledge they resort to a bit of ridicule and challenges and smugly declare their self fulfilling prophesy.

No I do not reject everything that is not proveable by science - i just dont commit to it as if it were true which religious people seem to.

I think it is highly unlikely that there is a god. I do not say that with 100% certainty because there is the slightest of slightest chances that there is. Thus I will not commit to wasting time in my life on the slightest of slightest chances until something more concrete develops. Common sense tells me that that more evidence is unlikely to ever come.

CerebralCortex

CDfm you're like the Evel Knievel of logic. If you think what that priest said was witty then I know why you're a theist. :rolleyes:

Genghiz Cohen

CDfm, nozzferrahhtoo sat you down in an epically stylish fashion.
Your rebuttal?

Rev Hellfire

Is this where we all cross our arms, nod our heads and say to CDfm "you just got served" ?

antiskeptic

Calibos wrote: »

Ultimately all religious people always give the game away at some point that they simply don't have a good enough understanding about what science means or does. It always turns out that one of the reasons for their belief or justification for their belief is based on a misunderstanding or a non understanding of some aspect of science.

Always? I can't think of one reason for my belief that's based on a misunderstanding of science. It's not that I'm a scientist - but I've a pretty good idea of it's strengths and weaknesses. For example:

I can imagine the thought process. Atheists say they can prove that there is no physical interaction with God and the universe here on earth

Atheists might say this but science wouldn't. To suppose that science can prove there is no physical reaction etc would be to misunderstand/not understand some aspect of science.

Because I believe it cannot be proven that a God doesn't exist I choose to believe the tales of a primitive bronze age tribe of goat herders from a semi arid land on the east coast of the mediterrainian sea circa 3000-2000 years ago.

Not only do you appear to misunderstand science, you appear to misunderstand belief too

Therefor it stands to reason that if we have never found a shread of evidence for a deity physically interacting with matter here. If we have not once ever found that the laws of physics were broken by a deity here, we can conclude it probably didn't happen anywhere else too.

You appear to presume the deity in question desires to be evidenced in the manner scientific. Is that not a bit of a leap?

Talking about the uber religious evangelicals here. 2 Things are always certain.
1. They don't have a full enough understanding of science and thus make false assumptions like above.

Which false assumption was that? The evangelicals I mean - not yours..

2. They always had a problem in their backgrounds/pasts and finding Jesus saved them, helped them through it.

And if the qualification for salvation happens to be that a man be broken down and his pride vanquished then what?

IIRC even one of the mods on the Christianity forum who denied he was one of those people who found Christianity after something bad happening in his life turned out to be lying. Wasn't it discovered or certainly some evidence found through a bit of internet detective work that he was probably addicted to Gambling. ie He spent an inordinate amount of time on a gambling forum and was ultimately banned for incessently preaching there about the evils of gambling. Why Gambling in particular. One could conclude because he was an ex Gambler who was cured after finding Jesus. Hey, Whatever helps, don't get me wrong.

By that logic you could conclude me to be a former agnostic. In which case you'd be right.

The problem comes when said person cured of his gambling addiction by a belief in Jesus then wants to ban Gays from Marriage etc, ie wants his beliefs written into the law of the land.

What's wrong with wanting things a certain way. Gay who want the laws changed want their beliefs written into the law of the land. Don't they?

I've a good friend who I purposely avoid discussing religion with. When I first met him I discovered he was an evangelical. Eventually in conversation one day he implied he had a darker past or something dark or traumatic in his past and that Jesus had saved him. Another example of what I am talking about. I want to tell him that Jesus didn't make the changes for the better to his life. He did it all by himself. I want him to be proud of himself and his own strength of character for getting through it. He is a wonderful guy. . He wants to give credit to a non-existent deity instead. I keep my mouth shut though. Don't want to get into a religious arguement with him. Nice thing about this guy though is that he isn't the type to want to impose his beliefs into the laws of the land.

He's in a position to know what occurred. You're not. Yet you suppose yourself in a better position to comment than him?

Not even Richard Dawkins would rate himself as being as certain of the lack of God as you do. And him the most fundemental of evangelical atheists?!

CDfm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

CDfm, nozzferrahhtoo sat you down in an epically stylish fashion.
Your rebuttal?

We can grant the possibility there is a god -nozzferrahhtoo

Hey it doesn't bother me - he can believe what he wants. MY God Belief really bugs him.

Genghiz Cohen

CDfm wrote: »

We can grant the possibility there is a god -nozzferrahhtoo

Hey it doesn't bother me - he can believe what he wants. MY God Belief really bugs him.

Well yeah there is the possibility there is a god. But there is also the possibility that if you hold up your hand a man in a pinstripe suit, speaking spanish and holding a model train will take a dump in it.

What's going on in this thread is that you want us to prove there isn't a god, which is the wrong way around, you need to prove there is a god.

Anyone's belief in a god bothers me, and some other atheists. A blind faith does nothing but progress the blind acceptance of things that might be difficult to explain. Like quantum mechanics, it would be so easy to sit back and say a wizard did it, but with that we will never be able to harness that power.

Religion powers ignorance.

axer

CDfm wrote: »

We can grant the possibility there is a god -nozzferrahhtoo

Hey it doesn't bother me - he can believe what he wants. MY God Belief really bugs him.

What type of rebuttal is that?
"Well, ill think what I want to think anyway".

Possibility is not proof in any way.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

....MY God Belief really bugs him.

No its probably you that bothers him. Why do you post so much in the A+A forum considering your beliefs?

antiskeptic

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What's going on in this thread is that you want us to prove there isn't a god, which is the wrong way around, you need to prove there is a god.

Hopefully what's going on in this thread is that the atheist concludes he can't prove no God. And that the theist concludes that he can't prove God. Which means the logical position for the atheist to occupy is agnosticism. That theist has all the evidence he needs to believe in God means he can go on believing in God. His not being able to prove it to the atheist is quite a different issue - and need not impact on his own belief.

Anyone's belief in a god bothers me, and some other atheists. A blind faith does nothing but progress the blind acceptance of things that might be difficult to explain.

If it was you who couldn't see the evidence that supports belief, wouldn't the problem be your own blindness and not with the faith of the believer. Theoretically I mean.

nozzferrahhtoo

Guys,

This is in fact the standard of response I expected from the user and I only made my long comment above to illicit this very level of reply out of it. It’s worth looking over this users patters on this and other threads as it is troll 101 and I knew my post above would make it show its true fur.

Troll 101 works something like this:

1) Make something that appears to be a point and argue for it a little time. Preferably not long as it will show you actually have no idea what you are talking about.

2) Wait until people have invested themselves in a reply (Trolling doesn’t really work unless you get people to invest in their reply 1st, as they are easier to make react when they have invested some time in a thread. People are liable to pass over threads that are obvious trolling from the start.)

3) Follow up with content-less replies that do not actually say anything but serve ONLY to attempt to rile up a reaction out of the targets. I present to you:

CDfm wrote: »

Yawn. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Thats me sleeping soundly.

4) Also follow up with replies that are patently false but try and distract the user into a tangent so that the points that are too good for you to reply to will lie forgotten and your targets will be stamping their feet at the latest bile you have spewed. I present to you:

CDfm wrote: »

MY God Belief really bugs him.

Really lads, don’t feed the troll. They are only worth feeding long enough to get evidence of trolling out of them and then to do no more. I for one will not be addressing this troll again.

Genghiz Cohen

I pride myself on looking at evidence and working to a conclusion from there.
If there was evidence I would take it on-board and reassess my opinions.
Since declaring Atheism I have yet to seriously reassess my religious beliefs.

Flamed Diving

Q: Prove God doesn’t exist.

A: That’s a tough one. Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus and Apollo don’t exist, and I’ll use your method.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You appear to presume the deity in question desires to be evidenced in the manner scientific. Is that not a bit of a leap?

Burning bushes, parted seas, stone tablets and resurrected carpenters beg to differ with you!

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's wrong with wanting things a certain way. Gay who want the laws changed want their beliefs written into the law of the land. Don't they?

Last time I checked the proposed gay marriage concept didn't make it compulsory for all of us. :pac:

aidan24326

CDfm wrote: »

Not to these guys they are scientists and research things scientifically.

Reminds me of a story I heard. One Saturday evening after Mass Fr Murphy came accross a man in a lab coat under a street light searching franctically. The good padre stopped to help and asked the man what he had lostand he replied his house key.After an unfruitful search Fr Murphy asked could he remember where he was when he last had the key. The man pointed to some bushes and the priest suggested they search there next to which the man replied "Why , Im a scientist and the light is better here"

The logic is that you reject everything thats not proveable via the natural sciences. Already, knowing such is the sum of their knowledge they resort to a bit of ridicule and challenges and smugly declare their self fulfilling prophesy.

Having exhausted all of their natural factual sciences to explain away their inability to cope with God Beliefs in others and in other cultures resort to memes and genes and stuff to give it a technical sci-babble feel. At this stage,we are all supposed to be impressed that they have applied their scientific brains to the issue and now can do philosophy too. Deadly.

Did you hear the one about the atheist who had a breakdown - he thought his kids first word was Yahweh.

If there's a point to any of this it's lost on me I'm afraid.

antiskeptic

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I pride myself on looking at evidence and working to a conclusion from there.

In order to look you have to be able to see. You seem to be presuming yourself able to see all the evdience. If that assumption is correct then your position is a sound one. If not then not.

Given no way to check whether your assumption is sound, agnosticism would be a more rational option

If there was evidence I would take it on-board and reassess my opinions

I'm sure you would. It seems the reasonable thing to do.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Burning bushes, parted seas, stone tablets and resurrected carpenters beg to differ with you!

You'll remember rampant unbelief in the face of such things too?

Last time I checked the proposed gay marriage concept didn't make it compulsory for all of us. :pac:

There are varying reasons why someone might resist the law being changed. I don't suppose this being one of them.

Black Swan

This debate seems to recycle in this forum between those that "believe" in a theist perspective and those that "accept" a very different scientific-based explanation?

Does anyone see the craic that comes from the interaction of these two different perspectives of life? And perhaps why they may never convince the other side to switch?

I have encountered several of the theist believer orientation that will point out examples in their lives, or in the lives of others, that serve to lend support to their belief system. Faith healing and the power of prayer are accepted by many to support their "beliefs" (which of course are disputed by those of the scientific-based orientation).

Those of the science-based perspective must "accept" some things that are logically consistent with their orientation, as they cannot personally test everything considered valid in terms of existent scientific-based theory, nor can they personally replicate in laboratory experiments or naturalistic quasi-experimental designs everything that they "accept?"

So to a small extent is there a similarity between theist "believers" and those that "accept" their markedly different scientific-based perspectives, both lacking direct personal experience to support all that they "believe" or "accept?"

This reminds me of what W.I. Thomas once concluded: "If you believe (or accept*) something as being real, it will be real for you in its consequences;" i.e., real for you in terms of how you perceive the world, be it something founded on faith or something founded on scientific evidence?

*I added "accept" to Thomas. Also, apologies for making a dichotomous argument between "believers" and those that "accept," when things are probably more complex in the real world.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll remember rampant unbelief in the face of such things too?

I don't follow. These are religious myths, afaic.

Also, can I point out that you can still be an atheist and acknowledge that the non/existence of god(s) is unknowable?
I acknowledge it - but for the record I believe gods don't exist, which makes me an atheist.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

I don't follow. These are religious myths, afaic.

You used the "fact" of empirical evidence for God to answer my suggestion that God might not wanting to evidence himself. I'm using the "fact" of people still not believing - in spite of the empirical evidence to expand the point.

"You'll know God exists when God decides he wants you to know" is as good a presumption as the one that figures it can't find any evidence therefore there probably isn't a god.

Also, can I point out that you can still be an atheist and acknowledge that the non/existence of god(s) is unknowable?

I acknowledge it - but for the record I believe gods don't exist, which makes me an atheist.

Is that a blind belief or have you some evidence for it?

Mena

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is that a blind belief or have you some evidence for it?

It would be a lack of evidence I would say.

velocirafter

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Those of the science-based perspective must "accept" some things that are logically consistent with their orientation, as they cannot personally test everything considered valid in terms of existent scientific-based theory, nor can they personally replicate in laboratory experiments or naturalistic quasi-experimental designs everything that they "accept?"
[/size]

can you give an example of these experiments

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You used the "fact" of empirical evidence for God to answer my suggestion that God might not wanting to evidence himself. I'm using the "fact" of people still not believing - in spite of the empirical evidence to expand the point.

So the fact that not everyone believes is evidence that God might not wanting to evidence himself? You're on the wrong forum with that nugget!

antiskeptic wrote: »

"You'll know God exists when God decides he wants you to know" is as good a presumption as the one that figures it can't find any evidence therefore there probably isn't a god.

Maybe in a world devoid of logic it might be.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is that a blind belief or have you some evidence for it?

As a rule, I don't believe in invisible, intangible, supernatural propositions without a reason.

antiskeptic

Mena wrote: »

It would be a lack of evidence I would say.

Which places a serious amount of onus on your ability to a) find and b) evaluate evidence. The belief arises out of trust in self thus.

Against what precisely is this "instrument" calibrated?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which places a serious amount of onus on your ability to a) find and b) evaluate evidence.

Only if you're operating on the assumption that the evidence must exist, before you even start looking.
Similar to the way creation science works, in fact.