Are you an atheist? (5 Viewers)

[Rich]

The very rightwing partner of another won't be voting because he regards McCain as a dangerous left-winger.

Like Bliar you mean? oops silly me that bunch are more right wing than the Tories

 

[Rabbie]

Can you give even the smallest piece of science to cover Before the Big Bang. Just a microscopic piece will do. Of course you can't. Thus for you to be an atheist requires faith and lots of faith on your part. If you read "A short history of time." By Stephen Hawkins it will explain why this question is meaningless.

I don't need faith not to believe in something that there is no evidence for. All I am saying is "I don't believe in the eistance of a supernatural being". For the record I don't believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy either.

I do however believe that "the harder I work the luckier I get" based on a combination of experience and common sense. I have found that if I don't put the work in then I don't get the results. I don't think this points to external reward system. By the way the original quote was by Gary Player after a reporter had suggested he had some lucky shots in a tournament. He actually said "The more I practice the luckier I get" and it was widely interpreted at the time as a put down of the reporter.

 

[Mike375]

I'm intrigued by Alisas view, she claims to be based upon evidence but acknowleges there is no evidence that God does not exist. Others just have faith.

So those into evidence have none, and those into faith have some.

Faith wins.

To win the debate as an evolusionist it is necessary to confine the debate to a time no earlier than the first appearance of life. If the debate (as in this thread) is allowed to go back to the Big Bang the evolusionist is out of the game. Also, the evolusionist alway loses if they get sucked into the Bible vs Evolution because the pro "intelligent creation" crowd can just dump the Bible. The existance of an all powefull all knowing god does not depend on the accuracy of the Bible.

The thing that really flattened the anti God side of these type of debates was the introduction the Big Bang because it puts a mark on the time graph and all science drops out of the game when they hit that mark on the graph. As soon as you back before the Big Bang the evolusionist now plays in the pro God people's court because either require faith pre Big Bang.

 

[Pauldohert]

I don't need faith not to believe in something that there is no evidence for. All I am saying is "I don't believe in the eistance of a supernatural being". For the record I don't believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy either.

But there is good scientific evidence that the tooth fairy and Father Christmas don't exist and , ie it was your dad .

So that is not similar to a disbelief in God at all.

 

[Mike375]

I don't need faith not to believe in something that there is no evidence for. All I am saying is "I don't believe in the eistance of a supernatural being". For the record I don't believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy either.

There is one huge difference between pre Big Bang and Father Christmas. In the case of Father Christmas we know that someone buys presents and during the night sticks them at the end of the bed.

But pre Big Bang.....There are only two possible answers

1) Scientific. If so what is it. Can you even make something up. Could you do a science fiction story perhaps...a bit hard. OK, so you reject an all powerful god which only leaves a faith in science. If the science community came up with an answer then how do you know it is the true answer? Faith? In fact if we look ar science down through the centuries one would need a lot of faith.

2) A god....Well there is no doubt that an all powerful and all knowing god can pull this trick out of his bag but another excercise in faith.

Somethig to perhaps consider. In the last 50-100 years the advances in science have been nothing short of amazing. Yet even so there is not even close to a scientific explanation for the unverse. Is it possible that there is no scientific explanation.

 

[Pauldohert]

By definition, a scientific theory CAN NOT be proven, it can only be DISPROVEN.

????????????

What does disproven mean scientifically?

 

[GaryPanic]

Because it's always been there

kills my arguement - but I find it hard to belive that .. there must be a beginining ?? ( it might just be me though lol) a natural cycle - a beginning and an end ....

 

[Brianwarnock]

Also, the evolusionist alway loses if they get sucked into the Bible vs Evolution

bit like this thread, but what about the other religious books?

The problem with any discussion about god(s) is that it ends up being a discussion about religion. I do not know if a God exists, nobody does, but I do have a problem with all of the religions I have come into contact with, and if there is a correct one out there then this all powerful all knowing merciful etc etc God should learn to communicate better.

Brian

 

[Mike375]

kills my arguement - but I find it hard to belive that .. there must be a beginining ?? ( it might just be me though lol) a natural cycle - a beginning and an end ....

Only for science...not for God.

The single biggest hole for science is that science can't deal with a start from nothing but it also can't deal with no beginning because that means infinity. This is the fundamental reason why a god is the most reasonable possibility.

 

[GaryPanic]

sure Mike - but who made God ???
taking my linear mind track -begining and end - then what was there before God ? - if we say that god was always there - then thats just a vague as the universe has always been there ?

neither is a good answer - which in my "mind set" leaves us no further along that we were before ..

if we knew how things happened at trhe beginning then it would answer this rather tricky question ..
we cannot rely on acient books - cos our level of knowledge now is higher than 2-3 thousand years ago (well i hope anyway)

 

[statsman]

In ancient times, when a sailor required a chart, the chartmaker would enter the caption for unexplored regions "Beyond here there be dragons".

I think the pre Big Bang era is the home of the dragons.

At some point science will probably come up with an explanation as to what was there before the Big Bang. Until then, watch out for the dragon's tail.

 

[GaryPanic]

bit like this thread, but what about the other religious books?

The problem with any discussion about god(s) is that it ends up being a discussion about religion. I do not know if a God exists, nobody does, but I do have a problem with all of the religions I have come into contact with, and if there is a correct one out there then this all powerful all knowing merciful etc etc God should learn to communicate better.

Brian

then you should vote for my - as I would always give a clear message - ( well perhaps not)

taking Brians example a few steps further - lets look at J.C - i am sure that his desciples were true to his teaching - but it does become chinnese whispers after a while - people leave bits out - then the bible was written what say 200-300 years after JC death and we know that the authors were rather selective in what went in..
Womens role in the early church has been belittled - where as recent revolations in various tombs have changed the view on this Mary M - has been changed from being a ***** to being JC compainion .

in the end the bible has been bastardised by men and used as an excuse for all sorts of B. Sh*t arguement - ,
that does not mean all christians are idiots or male pigs - just that you cannot rely on the bible to any real depth as a true histroical document -

why are their only 5? gospels ?( I hope i got that right ) - why isn't there 12 or maybe 11 given the circumstances

 

[Rabbie]

There is one huge difference between pre Big Bang and Father Christmas. In the case of Father Christmas we know that someone buys presents and during the night sticks them at the end of the bed.

Just because that happened in your (and my) case doesn't disprove that there is a real Father Christmas. Just because we don't know anyone who actually got a present from him is not proof he doesn't exist.. I am afraid this puts him and God on just the same footing. There are plenty of false gods around and plenty of religions which have tailored their view of god to match their requirements.


Using the principle of Occam's Razor the case for God is not as strong as you would suggest.

I did not come to my position easily. It took a long time before I was prepared to face reality and live life without a divine comfort blanket. It is much easier when you lose a loved one to have the comfort of the thought of an afterlife but that does not make it true - unfortunately.

 

[Mike375]

sure Mike - but who made God ???

Gary, if an all powerful god is accepted than that is not in the equation.

taking my linear mind track -begining and end - then what was there before God ? - if we say that god was always there - then thats just a vague as the universe has always been there ?

Again, if God is all powerfull etc then He is not bound by any natural laws as He created them in the first place. It would be like a very scaled up version of young childred trying figure out or comprehend some of the actions of his father.

if we knew how things happened at trhe beginning then it would answer this rather tricky question ..

But with God there is no beginning.

we cannot rely on acient books - cos our level of knowledge now is higher than 2-3 thousand years ago (well i hope anyway)

Don't need old books. Consider...there are only two possibilities

1) There was a beginning which of course must mean it would begin from nothing. Science can't play in that court and so is eliminated

2) There was no beginning. Science is out of the game on that one as well.

Thus in either scenario we need a god that is like God It is the only logical explanation. Since it is God then He will not have such limitations as "beginnings or endings"

 

[Rabbie]

Thus in either scenario we need a god that is like God It is the only logical explanation. Since it is God then He will not have such limitations as "beginnings or endings"

In that case Mike why did you originally click "Agnostic". Your position seems clear that you do not doubt the existence of God. I agree that the categories in the poll could have been better worded. I clicked the second Atheist one because I felt the first one was for people "who had made their minds up so don'confuse me with the facts"

 

[Mike375]

Just because that happened in your (and my) case doesn't disprove that there is a real Father Christmas. Just because we don't know anyone who actually got a present from him is not proof he doesn't exist.. I am afraid this puts him and God on just the same footing.

Not so. There are millions and millions of cases like yours and mine where our parents put the presents at the end of the bed. There may well be a Father Christmas but in millions or billions of cases he is not the deliverer of the presents. A totallly different situation to the God/science deal.

There are plenty of false gods around and plenty of religions which have tailored their view of god to match their requirements.

Agree. But irrespective of whether they promote theism or monotheism they have the common ground that a god or gods are the top end of town.

Using the principle of Occam's Razor the case for God is not as strong as you would suggest.

Per my previous post to Gary a god that is God like is the only explanation that has no exceptions, failures or whatever. Science is out of the game. Each of the possibilities elimiate science.

I did not come to my position easily. It took a long time before I was prepared to face reality and live life without a divine comfort blanket. It is much easier when you lose a loved one to have the comfort of the thought of an afterlife but that does not make it true - unfortunately.

Belief in a creator does not necessarily go hand in hand with a belief in an after life, that is a religious issue.

 

[Mike375]

In that case Mike why did you originally click "Agnostic". Your position seems clear that you do not doubt the existence of God. I agree that the categories in the poll could have been better worded. I clicked the second Atheist one because I felt the first one was for people "who had made their minds up so don'confuse me with the facts"

Because in the general context of the thread I am agnostic.

Although a god that is Godlike is to me the only logical explanation for the universe I have no idea if He relates to us, if there is an after life etc and etc. I have no idea whether he helpled the lizard to become a snake. etc

 

[GaryPanic]

I'll have to think on your views -not quite sure they have sunk in-

 

[Rich]

sure Mike - but who made God ???

Exactly, one either has to accept that the universe has always been there or that god has, the former is more logical, what can't be proven at this moment is that the Universe has been in a state of perpetual flux for all time and that we may well be in its final fling, it's still more plausible than the bearded man dogma

 

[Rich]

The single biggest hole for science is that science can't deal with a start from nothing

It didn't start from nothing but a huge ball of plasma