The Religion of Atheism (1 Viewer)

[Alc]

Start from my first post yesterday to you yesterday.I fully agree you are clueless , whether of a genuine variety - or playing up - I can't tell.To be honest mate - it really doesn't matter.

Think I have it.
Bold font is your comment, plain font is mine
[START OF CONVERSATION]
I have stated very clearly that I have no idea if God exists - so that logic is not mine. If your are saying that is my logic = then thats a nice work of fiction to justify your belief Alc!

That post has nothing to do with you or anything you've posted (congrats on the ego, though, it's growing nicely)

The comment was posted some time back, definitely before you changed aliases. I do remember the person posting was American, but I'm damned if I can remember who it was.

Who is the James/Paul you refer to then? Can't wait for this one?

That would be someone called Paul who got kicked off the forum for acting like a petulant child and swearing at people he disagreed with, only to quickly rejoin under the new pseudonym of James.

LMAO!So were you refering to me or not? One post you are unequivalent you weren't the next you say the opposite.Your starting to really entertain.

I'm not saying the opposite at all.
PaulDohert got a temporary ban just before you made your first post. Since the drivel you come out with matches his posts pretty closely, I - and I'm not alone, based on PMs - assumed you are he. If you're not, you're not, but please don't use this as another excuse to avoid posting anything approaching a proper point.

Edit: Just reread your post.
"One post you are unequivalent you weren't the next you say the opposite"
What does this even mean? Is unequivalent even a word?
[END OF CONVERSATION(?)]

What a surprise. It comes down to you not having a good grasp of English. I make reference to you in the third person and suddenly it's a contradiction?

Have you told the local priest God does not exist? Perhaps you should?

I've had numerous conversations with Christians of various professions, priests included. I'm not going to change their minds any more than they're going to change mine.
Have you told your local education authority that they should include information on fictional creatures in their history classes, since obtaining a B isn't sufficient to allow you to say that gryphons don't exist?

 

[JamesLast99]

Yep - you got it! Well done.We did, the Industrial Revolution - its done at national level! Jethro Tull et al ,Why include a non existent creature in a IR class? You are bizarre at times.Why include God in an RE class? I can only assume based upon your teaching they are idiots.

 

[Alc]

Why include a non existent creature in a IR class? You are bizarre at times.

In response to my question as to whether or not gryphons exist, you posted:
"I'm intrigued why you think I should get off the fence - I don't know the answer. You want me to guess?"
and
"I'm as emphatic as I can be - Is gryphon the name of the bus company? And I am wrong? There is that very real possibility? I got a stagecoach.The subject may or may not be an imaginary being."
and
"I just have a grade B at history GCSE - so unsurpisingly - I don't know."
Were you not saying that your B in history is what prevents you from being able to provide a definite answer?

 

[JamesLast99]

We were actually talking about what qualifcations may be necessary to have a good informed view on whether God existed or not. As all I have is a B in history - I quite rightly don't feel qualified. Hence I don't know.We have been here really. - I know you have spoken to the priest before - do it again.

 

[Mike375]

The_Doc_Man

Have you decided whether chance allowed the dice to roll the same way 50 times or was it a case of someone cheating.

I suspect with that example you posted...you are a theist in disguise.

Perhaps Alisa will explain to us how chance would be the choice

 

[Alc]

We were actually talking about what qualifcations may be necessary to have a good informed view on whether God existed or not. As all I have is a B in history - I quite rightly don't feel qualified. Hence I don't know.We have been here really. - I know you have spoken to the priest before - do it again.

At that point, I was specifically refering to the gryphon, but we can leave it there.

What do you feel I'll get out of another conversation with another priest?
All I will hear is his interpretation of the same evidence I already have, along with those things he was taught at seminary college (or wherever it is that priests train). It's not like he's going to come out with some revolutionary theory that's markedly different to what the others have said.

 

[JamesLast99]

He may do better than me - to persuade you , that you dont know God doesn't exist. And you keep coming back to me? Or is that why?

 

[Alc]

He may do better than me - to persuade you , that you dont know God doesn't exist. And you keep coming back to me? Or is that why?

I'm trying to get to grips with why you aren't happy with me being sure - to my own satisfaction which, ultimately, is all anyone can hope for - about the non-existence of God, yet you were also unhappy with the fact that I didn't know whether the Big Bang theory was correct.

Is it just because you disagree (i.e. you have a firm opinion on Big Bang but not on God), or something else?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike375,

I win the bet if I pick the right answer. Winning the bet is not based on me explaining how it was done.

In the case of the dice, no, it doesn't matter. In the case of whether we got here by evolution or Goddidit, it DOES matter that you step outside the box. If you pick God and you are right, then by living for the afterlife, you win. But if you pick God and you were wrong, you miss out on the possible pleasures of this life. So it IS a clear-cut win/lose type of decision. There IS no win-win case.

By the way, your comment in passing about whether God helped me throw 50 boxcars: The "Douglas Adams babel fish" logic applies. If I had actually done this wondrous feat, you might think it would PROVE the existence of God. But since we know that proof will not be allowed (only through FAITH etc etc), it actually proves that God doesn't exist.

Mike, let me be absolutely clear. If you wish to beleive in God, I think it is your right to do so. (You might even say "God-given right" - though I wouldn't have said that except in irony.) We were discussing WHY you believe, not WHAT you believe. Which is why you get questions about proof and comments about why "Well, just look around you" is NOT a valid form of proof.

Same goes for others besides Mike375 who choose to believe or not. Your belief is yours. If this discussion causes you to re-examine your beliefs, well and good. Some benefit might come of it.

 

[gmatriix]

Why is that people believe that air exist or other things not seen by the naked eye, yet do not believe that there is a Creator? Our planet has so much complex life, many of which we do not fully understand or even know about that shows that there is an intellegent designer.

Quotes that I found...
"Is it not that science somehow compels atheists to accept a material explanation of the world" says evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin. Rather, he says, "it is there prior commitment.....to materialism," their determination to create "a set of concepts that produce material explanations."

"That materialism," he adds, speaking for scientist in general, "is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Just my thoughts.......and information I found...

 

[Alisa]

Why is that people believe that air exist or other things not seen by the naked eye, yet do not believe that there is a Creator?

Why is it that people equate "proof" with "visibility to the human eye"?

 

[Alisa]

Alisa,

I have replied to you about everytime, except sometimes I will miss a post.



I don't expect you to believe anything. I posted "evidence" as per the movies. You have rejected it and that is fine by me.

As to your purple planet scenario I can't see how that is even close to relating to the movie evidence. But if you feel it does then that is fine too.

I don't reject your evidence. Your anecdote may be 100% true. What I don't understand is how that has any bearing on the subject of discussion, which is whether it is reasonable to believe that god exists given the complete lack of evidence.

As far as I can tell, you are saying, here is a piece of evidence, and therefore god exists. But logically that argument has no merit. I could say, here is your piece of evidence, therefore my purple planet exists, and be just a logically correct (that is to say, completely incorrect).

 

[Alc]

Why is that people believe that air exist or other things not seen by the naked eye, yet do not believe that there is a Creator? Our planet has so much complex life, many of which we do not fully understand or even know about that shows that there is an intellegent designer.

That would be evidence - if you choose to see it that way - not proof.
Without a proven (or even probable) reason for these creatures to exist, it is impossible for me to fathom how someone/something could have deliberately designed them. I'm not saying I even have to understand said reason, but I would need to believe there was one before I could believe that an intelligent being was behind eveything.

Also, there are other ways to prove that air exists. Blind people presumably believe in trees, but they can't see them. Other senses - and our ability to reason - need to be taken into account.

 

[Alisa]

The_Doc_Man

Have you decided whether chance allowed the dice to roll the same way 50 times or was it a case of someone cheating.

I suspect with that example you posted...you are a theist in disguise.

Perhaps Alisa will explain to us how chance would be the choice

In the case of the dice, you are talking about simple probability. i.e., you have the odds of rolling the same dice 50 times in a row, which are very small, and you have a single sequence of throwing the dice 50 times. In this case, the odds of throwing the dice 50 times the same way by chance are the same as the overall odds, because you are only doing this once.

Say instead that you had trillions people all throwing dice 50 times in a row over and over for trillions of years. The odds of this feat occuring would increase exponentially, because of the trillions and trillions of repititions. That is like our earth. For all we know, there may have been trillions of big bangs and trillions upon trillions of universes and suns and planets. Even if the odds of creating a planet like ours, and of life evolving on it were vanishingly small, given enough repition, it could eventually happen simply by chance.

So in the dice example given, where you only get one shot with impossibly slim odds, I would choose cheating.
But in the universe example, where you get trillions of trillions of tries with impossibly slim odds, I would pick chance.

 

[Rabbie]

Why is that people believe that air exist or other things not seen by the naked eye, yet do not believe that there is a Creator? Our planet has so much complex life, many of which we do not fully understand or even know about that shows that there is an intellegent designer.

I believe air exists because becase I can feel it when the wind blows. I can measure its pressure with a barometer.

There is no proof of "intelligent design". Just look at the back to front design of the mamallian eye to see an example of a complex organ that was not well designed but is easily explained by evolutionary processes.

"Intelligent Design" is just a pseudo-intellectual attempt to make Creationism respectable

 

[Mike375]

In the case of the dice, no, it doesn't matter. In the case of whether we got here by evolution or Goddidit, it DOES matter that you step outside the box. If you pick God and you are right, then by living for the afterlife, you win. But if you pick God and you were wrong, you miss out on the possible pleasures of this life. So it IS a clear-cut win/lose type of decision. There IS no win-win case.

What do I miss out on.

Mike, let me be absolutely clear. If you wish to beleive in God, I think it is your right to do so. (You might even say "God-given right" - though I wouldn't have said that except in irony.) We were discussing WHY you believe, not WHAT you believe. Which is why you get questions about proof and comments about why "Well, just look around you" is NOT a valid form of proof.

Same goes for others besides Mike375 who choose to believe or not. Your belief is yours. If this discussion causes you to re-examine your beliefs, well and good. Some benefit might come of it.

But the believer sees evidence otherwise they would not be believers.

 

[Mike375]

I don't reject your evidence. Your anecdote may be 100% true. What I don't understand is how that has any bearing on the subject of discussion, which is whether it is reasonable to believe that god exists given the complete lack of evidence.

As far as I can tell, you are saying, here is a piece of evidence, and therefore god exists. But logically that argument has no merit. I could say, here is your piece of evidence, therefore my purple planet exists, and be just a logically correct (that is to say, completely incorrect).

I gave you one piece of evidence I see. It is not the only piece.

For some reason you can't grasp the fact that if there is evidence for something that "is not natural" then we have entered supernatural land.

 

[Rich]

Are the Northern and Southern lights still supernatural events?

 

[JamesLast99]

I'm trying to get to grips with why you aren't happy with me being sure - to my own satisfaction which, ultimately, is all anyone can hope for - about the non-existence of God, yet you were also unhappy with the fact that I didn't know whether the Big Bang theory was correct.

Is it just because you disagree (i.e. you have a firm opinion on Big Bang but not on God), or something else?

I don't understand either of them, I'm quite consistent in not knowing much about lots of things, and I'm not learning much here so I think that sums it up really.

 

[Alc]

I don't understand either of them, I'm quite consistent in not knowing much about lots of things, and I'm not learning much here so I think that sums it up really.

Yes, but why is it a problem that I have resolved the issue for myself, to my own satisfaction? Why do you want a priest to try to change my mind?