Can We Stop Arguing the Existence Of God?

[JDawg]

Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God? At what point are we going to realize that it is a useless, baseless argument that has no standing in any science whatsoever?

I'm not a believer, but it shames me to see atheists actually trying to play this game. There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!

I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society, what role it plays and/or should play in politics, what role atheism should play in both, ect., ect.. We shouldn't be lowering ourselves to trying to disprove God, when we all know it can't be done. No matter what science you throw at a theist, they can always push God back further in the timeline. Evolution? Oh, OK, well, he programmed us for it. Big Bang? Oh, well, he did that. Quantum physics? Oh, well, that's just the framework that he built.

See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god.

So let's talk about the real stuff. C'mon, guys, we're better than this.

[clusteringflux]

What's funny to me is that even though "science doesn't believe in god" , many atheist scientists are just as wrapped up in the global gloom and doomsday squaking as the theists. They just put a different spin on it.

[JDawg]

That's not true at all. Scientists only go by what they have evidence for, or at least good maths. Theists go by stuff written by Bronze Age Jews in a book 2000 years ago.

What doomsday stuff are you talking about?

[clusteringflux]

I merely think it's a funny coincidence that they echo each other in the manner of:

"If we humans don't act now to change our ways and conform to standard X, we will most assuredly experience widespread global atrocities and disaster. All of which ending in a fiery blaze/human extinction"

As for scientist, I think the most common subjects today that invoke this reaction is global warming, nuclear holocaust/fallout, religious wars, pollution,asteroids,super viruses and fresh water shortage.

But I'm not here to argue.lol

[JDawg]

As for scientist, I think the most common subjects today that invoke this reaction is global warming, nuclear holocaust/fallout, religious wars, pollution,asteroids,super viruses and fresh water shortage.

Well, last time I checked, scientists weren't running around screaming about that stuff. If they talk about something, it's to increase awareness to potential dangers. And by the way, things like viruses and pollution and global warming are real threats, as opposed to the supposed unearthly retribution from a supposed decline in religious morality.

[draqon]

Discussion of God will not cease until the the time ceases to exist.

[clusteringflux]

A retribution from a supposed decline in scientific morality/responsibility?

Yeah, huge difference.

[clusteringflux]

Discussion of God will not cease until the the time ceases to exist.

Truly prophetic, Draq. As per usual.

[Enmos]

Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God? At what point are we going to realize that it is a useless, baseless argument that has no standing in any science whatsoever?

I'm not a believer, but it shames me to see atheists actually trying to play this game. There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!

I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society, what role it plays and/or should play in politics, what role atheism should play in both, ect., ect.. We shouldn't be lowering ourselves to trying to disprove God, when we all know it can't be done. No matter what science you throw at a theist, they can always push God back further in the timeline. Evolution? Oh, OK, well, he programmed us for it. Big Bang? Oh, well, he did that. Quantum physics? Oh, well, that's just the framework that he built.

See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god.

So let's talk about the real stuff. C'mon, guys, we're better than this.

I agree.
Mostly I only react to outrageous theist claims myself though.

[Enmos]

What's funny to me is that even though "science doesn't believe in god" , many atheist scientists are just as wrapped up in the global gloom and doomsday squaking as the theists. They just put a different spin on it.

That's not funny, and, a totally different thing. This "doomsday" scenario has some evidence to back it up.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I would hope while there is a sense of free-thought free-will, or even intelligence people will deny the existance of something that has no proof of existing.

Perhaps part of the theist's frustration causes resentment towards atheist's there has been a couple of threads which appear to be anti-atheist (:scratchin:I suppose that would be theist) but when you read the content some people don't seem to understand the concept of it at all, while maybe atheist's (in my case) understand religious teachings/religious edict/text to be no more than a concept and primative ways to portray things that were not fully understood at the time.
Perhaps the problem lies in interpretation of what is being portrayed.

[clusteringflux]

That's not funny, and, a totally different thing. This "doomsday" scenario has some evidence to back it up.

Oh, it's funny! Ha!.......Ha ha!.............Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha hahah............aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahhahah! ha....ah...ha..ah..ha

ha...

Ps. there have been more than a few scientist who set out to disprove god only to convert after failure.

[draqon]

Ha!.......Ha ha!.............Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha hahah............aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahhahah! ha....ah...ha..ah..ha

ha...

= ha^22

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Ps. there have been more than a few scientist who set out to disprove god only to convert after failure.
How can you disprove what you do not believe exist's.?

[draqon]

How can you disprove what you do not believe exist's.?

How can he prove that what he does believe exists?

[Enmos]

Oh, it's funny! Ha!.......Ha ha!.............Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahha hahah............aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahhahah! ha....ah...ha..ah..ha

ha...

Ps. there have been more than a few scientist who set out to disprove god only to convert after failure.

I'm not trying to disprove God.
I'm just saying the destruction of the natural environment is real, and people aiming to bring this to the attention of the dumb and ignorant are not to be compared with religious freaks.

:)

[clusteringflux]

I'm not trying to disprove God. Yes,Enmos. I know.

I'm just saying the destruction of the natural environment is real, and people aiming to bring this to the attention of the dumb and ignorant are not to be compared with religious freaks.

Perhaps, equally as funny is that scientists created these potentially dangerous methods and practices, brought them to the people and now realize, Oh shit, that was a huge mistake. So give yourselve's a big pat on the back. But from a economic sense, it's kinda like job security. Make money fucking it up then make money trying to fix it.
Really, though, without a sense of humor in this world, neither God nor science can help you.

[Enmos]

Yes,Enmos. I know.



Perhaps, equally as funny is that scientists created these potentially dangerous methods and practices, brought them to the people and now realize, Oh shit, that was a huge mistake. So give yourselve's a big pat on the back. But from a economic sense, it's kinda like job security. Make money fucking it up then make money trying to fix it.
Really, though, without a sense of humor in this world, neither God nor science can help you.

Well, I agree with that. Humans suck.. nature would be better off without them.

[draqon]

Well, I agree with that. Humans suck.. nature would be better off without them.

, said a human.

But for once nature spoke, "Enmos I would be better of without you, you are a human"

[Enmos]

...

[Cris]

JDawg,

Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God? I think there has been 1 or 2 like that out of the thousands of threads we have. Most are about requesting theists to prove existence of gods.

Or have I missed something here?

[draqon]

We need a new thread asking to prove existence of God

[Cris]

Oh no not another one of those - we have hundreds already. :-)

[Medicine*Woman]

Oh no not another one of those - we have hundreds already. :-)
*************
M*W: It might be more entertaining to start a thread for christians only to explain to us why they believe in a god as they describe their experience. I need a few good laughs!

[JDawg]

I think there has been 1 or 2 like that out of the thousands of threads we have. Most are about requesting theists to prove existence of gods.

Bull. I've been coming here for years now, despite the low post count. There have been hundreds of threads exactly as I've described.

[Crunchy Cat]

... There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!
...

On a sidenote, the generic concept of 'God' is not falsifiable; however, specific human claims of 'God' are. More importantly, the root of such claims are heavily influenced by a survival mechanism called anthropomoprhism so we also have an explanation as to why claims of 'God' exist.

[spidergoat]

The God Hypothesis can be disproved the same way it can be disproved that babies don't come from storks. I suppose one must admit that it's not totally impossible for a stork to bring someone a baby, but it's so unlikely that no one should take it seriously. Only math can disprove things, and that's an abstract world.

[scorpius]

Really, though, without a sense of humor in this world, neither God nor science can help you.
yes,sense of humor is good,but when it comes to help, in sickness and such,
I take science over god and prayer everytime.
and I have a feeling that great majority of religious people will too. ;)
and when they get better no doubt they will praise god for healing them.

[scorpius]

There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it!
sure you can, check this
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm
and
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godlogic.html

It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!
true.. BUT no ONE is forcing demons, ghosts into the schools like they are trying to do with Jebus! ;)

I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society,
it belongs into the past imo,
young kids should be brought up with scientificaly proven facts and truth and knowledge instead of some fictious fantasy tales,if you ever want to build better world.
the way I see it
religion does NOT make you better person or need you to live sin less life and be good when all it takes is faith=belief in god to get into haven!

why should religious person care for the environment IF they believe they will end up in haven anyway,as long as they believe and worship in God?

See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god.
its not sciences job to disprove gods its for philosophers.

[JDawg]

Scorpius, I agree with you, but I just feel like we're wasting our time trying to prove where the "God Concept" comes from. It's pointless to argue existence, because they can keep pushing it back in the equation. What needs to be argued are the reasons why it doesn't belong in schools, and doesn't belong in politics.

[Norsefire]

As spidergoat mentioned in a different thread, when it comes to God it's not about proving or disproving, but rather probability. However, I find both the theories of Intelligent Design and natural occurences equally plausable with equal weight.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I attended a university convocation the other day. It was a small group, around a 1000 people were receiving their degrees. This was only a small segment of the university's population and in this gathering there were 5 people slated to receive their doctorates. I thought that was great until I found out they were all philosophers. I have a low regard for philosophers as some of you may know, particularly the religious variety and they remind me of this story:

A priest rented a gondola and gondolier to see him safely across a wide expanse of water. 1/4 of the way across the priest asked the gondolier if he had ever gone to church. The gondolier said he hadn't, prompting the priest to inform him that he had wasted a 1/4 of his life. 1/2 way across the priest asked if he had ever read the Bible. The gondolier again spoke that he hadn't. The priest told the gondolier that he had now wasted 1/2 of his life. 3/4 across the water the silence was again broken by the priest asking the gondolier if he had ever prayed to god. No, wqs the reply. The upset priest told the gondolier that he had now wasted 3/4 of his life.

Just then the boat started taking on water and was obviously going to sink before they reached shore. The gondolier asked his passenger if he knew how to swim whereupon the priest answer, 'No', he did not. Before he jumped off and swam to shore the gondolier looked the priest in the eye and said.' then you have wasted your whole life then"

Sometimes I'm reminded of that moral when I wax philosophic(argue religion). I wonder if one of those new doctors of philosophy will open up a philosophy office downtown and hang up a sign stating they're looking for patience.

[draqon]

The day we will find ourselves shall mark the day we find God. The day when we shall know all about ourselves shall be the day we know of God.

[PsychoticEpisode]

The day we will find ourselves shall mark the day we find God. The day when we shall know all about ourselves shall be the day we know of God.

Reverse the order Draq...sounds better, chronologically speaking.

[JDawg]

As spidergoat mentioned in a different thread, when it comes to God it's not about proving or disproving, but rather probability. However, I find both the theories of Intelligent Design and natural occurences equally plausable with equal weight.

1) How can you calculate the probability of a creator existing without knowing whether or not a universe even requires creating.

2) How can you weigh natural causation and intelligent design equally when there is only evidence for natural causation?

[Norsefire]

1) How can you calculate the probability of a creator existing without knowing whether or not a universe even requires creating.

2) How can you weigh natural causation and intelligent design equally when there is only evidence for natural causation?

1) A universe must come into existence, hence, it is "created". I suppose created is not the right word, since that implies intelligent intervention. Basically, it is obvious a universe must come into existence. The question is, how?


2) There is no such evidence. Evidence only exists to show us the process of universal creation (the fallout from the big bang) but NOT what lead to that.

[JDawg]

1) A universe must come into existence, hence, it is "created". I suppose created is not the right word, since that implies intelligent intervention. Basically, it is obvious a universe must come into existence. The question is, how?

But again I ask how you calculate the probability for intelligent design. How can you calculate the possibility of something you have no evidence for?

2) There is no such evidence. Evidence only exists to show us the process of universal creation (the fallout from the big bang) but NOT what lead to that.

There is absolutely evidence. We have evidence that shows that the processes occurring after the big bang are altogether natural. Why would you assume the causation of the universe was different?

[Norsefire]

But again I ask how you calculate the probability for intelligent design. How can you calculate the possibility of something you have no evidence for?
I calculate it based on what is known and observed. So far, I see little reason to give greater weight to natural causes than to intelligent design. There is not enough, if any, evidence for either side.



There is absolutely evidence. We have evidence that shows that the processes occurring after the big bang are altogether natural. Why would you assume the causation of the universe was different?

There is evidence that there was a big bang. However, what was the driving force behind it? What caused it?

Of course everything AFTER would be natural, since the universe would already exist and thus the natural laws as well.

That was irrelevant. It's about how this universe and these laws came about, and why they act as they do; why forces do not falter, and what ensures that everything is as it is and cannot be anything else.

[JDawg]

There is evidence that there was a big bang. However, what was the driving force behind it? What caused it?

Of course everything AFTER would be natural, since the universe would already exist and thus the natural laws as well.

That was irrelevant. It's about how this universe and these laws came about, and why they act as they do; why forces do not falter, and what ensures that everything is as it is and cannot be anything else.

Again, Norse, you're giving weight to the assumption that the "nature" of the big bang was any less natural than the occurrences that happen within it. What reason do you have to assume that the universe is anything more than a step in a natural process? We see that everything after the BB is natural, so why would anything before it be otherwise?

[Norsefire]

Again, Norse, you're giving weight to the assumption that the "nature" of the big bang was any less natural than the occurrences that happen within it. What reason do you have to assume that the universe is anything more than a step in a natural process? We see that everything after the BB is natural, so why would anything before it be otherwise?

I am not saying it had to be. There is a possibility that the universe is a step in a natural process. But I find such a thing to have equal weight to the universe having been created by an intelligent entity.

The reason they both have equal weight is because they both lack true evidence to support them. There is no true evidence to show that the universe was the process of natural occurence. The big bang is not evidence, even if it were proven (remember, it's just a theory). It merely shows how the universe came about. Any natural laws came DURING or AFTER the creation of the universe, not before.

So it's impossible to have evidence as to whether or not the universe is a natural occurence or a creation, and therefore both theories hold equal weight to me in their inability to be backed up.

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

How can he prove that what he does believe exists?

Well he could start by what caused him to believe and take step's to show what evidence has commited him to believe, then if the evidence is acceptable it is proof.........

But if you don't believe something exist's how do you actualy set about proving it doesn't exist scientificaly I don't see how

[JDawg]

Well, I guess we're just going to have to disagree on that. The way I see it, everything within the universe occurs naturally, so to make the jump to the supernatural as a cause...I'm sorry, it just doesn't hold water. If you want to go that route, then make room for the possibility that we're really just cells within a huge alien's toenail. I mean, what justification is there to narrow it down to a God? Why not a super-evolved race of aliens?

I guess the point I'm making is that assuming the supernatural is a jump you can't take. There's nothing supernatural about the universe, why would the cause of it be?

[John99]

The day we will find ourselves shall mark the day we find God. The day when we shall know all about ourselves shall be the day we know of God.

it is weird that so many people are in a hurry to find God or no God. "hey worship me, i created everything now worship me, worship me, worrrrrship me. oh no no no, just kidding dont worship me, come on dont...what are you doing?:bugeye:"

[PsychoticEpisode]

it is weird that so many people are in a hurry to find God or no God.

10-4. In the interest of humanity it's too bad it wasn't the other way around.

[Leo Volont]

But, wait, what about in the face of every positive Religious Assertion, of Saint, of Miracle, of Vision, that the Atheist insist that it all must be taken to a Controlled Laboratory and all repeated in a controlled experiment. You see, the Atheist must insist that EMPIRICAL evidence is no longer enough, that in the Modern World nothing can possibly be known until the Government pays for a Study Grant.





Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God? At what point are we going to realize that it is a useless, baseless argument that has no standing in any science whatsoever?

I'm not a believer, but it shames me to see atheists actually trying to play this game. There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!

I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society, what role it plays and/or should play in politics, what role atheism should play in both, ect., ect.. We shouldn't be lowering ourselves to trying to disprove God, when we all know it can't be done. No matter what science you throw at a theist, they can always push God back further in the timeline. Evolution? Oh, OK, well, he programmed us for it. Big Bang? Oh, well, he did that. Quantum physics? Oh, well, that's just the framework that he built.

See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god.

So let's talk about the real stuff. C'mon, guys, we're better than this.

[JDawg]

But, wait, what about in the face of every positive Religious Assertion, of Saint, of Miracle, of Vision, that the Atheist insist that it all must be taken to a Controlled Laboratory and all repeated in a controlled experiment. You see, the Atheist must insist that EMPIRICAL evidence is no longer enough, that in the Modern World nothing can possibly be known until the Government pays for a Study Grant.

Every miracle? Do you have proof of any miracle? No, you don't.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I think I believe in god now more than I ever have, Im not religious though.


peace.

[ronan]

everybody believe in god, but some do not know that they do :p

[Medicine*Woman]

everybody believe in god, but some do not know that they do :p

*************
M*W: I think I understand what you're trying to say, but can you please explain why you think this is so?

[ronan]

*************
M*W: I think I understand what you're trying to say, but can you please explain why you think this is so?

I was happy with the sentence, asking me to develop will maybe loose its strength ;)

but let express my thought, (mis-t-highs, if you are here, please give argument or leave :p )

there are many reasons, one is because of my view of god: god is consciousness
it follows that because we believe consciousness exist, we believe god exists

the other reason: we all believe in something bigger than us, or at least that a reality exist beyond our perception, all these could be god.

what would be your reason (you said that you understand) ?

[mis-t-highs]

but let express my thought, (mis-t-highs, if you are here, please give argument or leave Argument to what! you've not put forward an argument worthy of debate.
Put something logical, intelligible, and sensible, on the board and I will.

[audible]

Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God?Atheist dont use science to disprove god, thats a given. Atheist use science, to try to make it understandable to the religious.At what point are we going to realize that it is a useless, baseless argument that has no standing in any science whatsoever?We (being the atheists) do understand that, it's making the religious understand, that's the problem.I'm not a believer, but it shames me to see atheists actually trying to play this game. There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!I believe that all athiest believe that is so, I've not seen any try to disprove god, as we all know, it is infantile to do so. Yet we still get asked by the religious to. Go figure.I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society, what role it plays and/or should play in politics, what role atheism should play in both, ect., ect.. You are asking the impossible there, when one sides argument is based in subjective reality.
That like trying to have a sensible debate with a chimp.
You've only to look at some of the statements and threads put up by the likes of leo volont, woody, lightgigantic, ronan, to name but a few.
however some theist do put up some very well thought out threads, but sadly this is a rarity. We shouldn't be lowering ourselves to trying to disprove God, when we all know it can't be done. No matter what science you throw at a theist, they can always push God back further in the timeline. Evolution? Oh, OK, well, he programmed us for it. Big Bang? Oh, well, he did that. Quantum physics? Oh, well, that's just the framework that he built. Don't they just.
See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god. Science doesn't try to explain away god, it has no reason to concider god as a viable concept.

[spidergoat]

Atheist dont use science to disprove god, thats a given.
No it isn't, and they do.

Atheist use science, to try to make it understandable to the religious.We (being the atheists) do understand that, it's making the religious understand, that's the problem.I believe that all athiest believe that is so, I've not seen any try to disprove god, as we all know, it is infantile to do so.

If God has any effect at all on the physical world, then it can be examined by science. It is not infantile to do so. There have been scientific tests, for instance, on prayer.

Science doesn't try to explain away god, it has no reason to concider god as a viable concept.
That doesn't matter. You can treat the question as a scientific problem. Does prayer work? Did Jesus exist and was he resurrected? Do priests and religious people enjoy greater prosperity or freedom from crime? Do miracles happen? Science has yet found no support for the existence of the supernatural, but that doesn't mean the supernatural isn't a valid subject.

[spidergoat]

As spidergoat mentioned in a different thread, when it comes to God it's not about proving or disproving, but rather probability. However, I find both the theories of Intelligent Design and natural occurences equally plausable with equal weight.

That's true. I suggest the non-existence of God can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not absolutely, since almost nothing is subject to that degree of certainty in science.

[spidergoat]

But, wait, what about in the face of every positive Religious Assertion, of Saint, of Miracle, of Vision, that the Atheist insist that it all must be taken to a Controlled Laboratory and all repeated in a controlled experiment. You see, the Atheist must insist that EMPIRICAL evidence is no longer enough, that in the Modern World nothing can possibly be known until the Government pays for a Study Grant.

Remember, it was the religious that started alchemy and pre-scientific investigations of the natural world. They naturally assumed all results would support the Bible. Now that the results seem to contradict the Bible and organized religion, see how they back away from the practice? It is not enough that one person observe something. Even the religious must admit there is such a thing as mental illness and hallucinations. How does one determine that they are not caused by the devil?

[audible]

No it isn't, and they do.Ok, can you show one instants of it happening, thank you.If God has any effect at all on the physical world, then it can be examined by science. It is not infantile to do so. There have been scientific tests, for instance, on prayer.Ok, lets rephrase what I said, as it seems you think I'm invoking an absolute, heres what I said "I believe that all athiest believe that is so, I've not seen any try to disprove god,*scientists had tried in the past, and found no evidence** it is infantile to do so *now. Yet we still get asked by the religious to. Go figure."

* added
** removedThat doesn't matter. You can treat the question as a scientific problem. Does prayer work? Did Jesus exist and was he resurrected? Do priests and religious people enjoy greater prosperity or freedom from crime? Do miracles happen? Science has yet found no support for the existence of the supernatural, but that doesn't mean the supernatural isn't a valid subject.As long as it's discussed as a subjective, pseudoscientific, immaterial, intangible, metaphysical, incorporeal, insubstantial, unapparent, vague, unknowable, unreal, concept, it is a valid subject, but outside of those parameter's it is most definitely infantile for the scientist, to discuss.

[spidergoat]

Ok, can you show one instants of it happening, thank you.
God: The Failed Hypothesis
How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/)

As long as it's discussed as a subjective, pseudoscientific, immaterial, intangible, metaphysical, incorporeal, insubstantial, unapparent, vague, unknowable, unreal, concept, it is a valid subject, but outside of those parameter's it is most definitely infantile for the scientist, to discuss.
That is simply false. When investigating such phenomenon, it would be inappropriate to come to a conclusion before the experiment were conducted. If ghosts are seen, then they produce or reflect visible light, that is a physical phenomenon that can be tested. Presently, the supernatural has no evidence to support it, but if there were evidence, scientists would be extremely interested in learning about it. There have been perfectly valid scientific experiments conducted on ESP, for instance.

[ggazoo]

All I know is that there sure are a lot of atheists spending a lot of time talking about something that supposedly doesn't exist. :shrug:

[mis-t-highs]

That is simply false. When investigating such phenomenon, it would be inappropriate to come to a conclusion before the experiment were conducted. But isn't that the very nature of a sceptic, and then to go about falsifying it after, to prove their point. If ghosts are seen, then they produce or reflect visible light, that is a physical phenomenon that can be tested. Presently, the supernatural has no evidence to support it, but if there were evidence, scientists would be extremely interested in learning about it. As would anybody, but without some kind of incentive/goal, to do a little research, most would leave it for someone else to do, or to gather dust.

[audible]

God: The Failed Hypothesis
How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/) thanks will read those.
That is simply false. When investigating such phenomenon, it would be inappropriate to come to a conclusion before the experiment were conducted. If ghosts are seen, then they produce or reflect visible light, that is a physical phenomenon that can be tested. Presently, the supernatural has no evidence to support it, but if there were evidence, scientists would be extremely interested in learning about it. There have been perfectly valid scientific experiments conducted on ESP, for instance.yes I know experiments are carried out, on these things, but nobody claims them as true scientific studies.

[Medicine*Woman]

All I know is that there sure are a lot of atheists spending a lot of time talking about something that supposedly doesn't exist. :shrug:

*************
M*W: There are other non-existent things we talk about, such as:

Zeus
Unicorns
Leprechauns
Santa Claus
Easter Bunny
Tooth Fairy
God
Jesus
Intelligent theists on sciforums

[Norsefire]

That's true. I suggest the non-existence of God can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not absolutely, since almost nothing is subject to that degree of certainty in science.

But how beyond a reasonable doubt? It is PURELY impossible to either prove or disprove God, and therefore it stands exactly in the middle. That makes it irrelevant.

[ronan]

Argument to what! you've not put forward an argument worthy of debate.
Put something logical, intelligible, and sensible, on the board and I will.

you could be in a dream, you could be a butterfly dreaming of being to be a human.

your perceptiosn can not be sjustified to correspond to reality.

thus you have to doubt them, but you cannot doubt the existence of what permits in the first place these perceptions: consciousness.

consciousness exists.

all other claim are unjustifiable.
and you do not need any other claim than consciousness perceive everything including you now, me, you in the past, you in the future.

Moreover, the hard problem if impossible, will show that matter if exist cannot interact with consciousness, thus matter has no relevance to our perceptions.

[ggazoo]

*************
M*W: There are other non-existent things we talk about, such as:

Zeus
Unicorns
Leprechauns
Santa Claus
Easter Bunny
Tooth Fairy
God
Jesus
Intelligent theists on sciforums

Then why are you wasting your time talking about fairy tales?

[pavlosmarcos]

Then why are you wasting your time talking about fairy tales?Trying to make sense of why people believe them.

[Medicine*Woman]

Then why are you wasting your time talking about fairy tales?
*************
M*W: Talking about them is one thing. Believing in them is another.

[spidergoat]

Then why are you wasting your time talking about fairy tales?

We've got nothing but time.

[ggazoo]

Trying to back sense of why people believe them.

Why do you care?

*************
M*W: Talking about them is one thing. Believing in them is another.

Not sure about that... why not focus on the things you do believe in rather than the things that you don't? Seems counter-productive.

[JDawg]

Is this all you got, ggazoo? Some whining about being picked on by the much smarter atheists? Just go home before you get hurt.

[Medicine*Woman]

Why do you care?

Not sure about that... why not focus on the things you do believe in rather than the things that you don't? Seems counter-productive.
*************
M*W: If I focused on myself and my family, you people would get bored. This is the religion sub-forum, and that's what I come here to talk about.

[codanblad]

On a sidenote, the generic concept of 'God' is not falsifiable; however, specific human claims of 'God' are. More importantly, the root of such claims are heavily influenced by a survival mechanism called anthropomoprhism so we also have an explanation as to why claims of 'God' exist.

yeah, you can punch holes in a certain christian definition of god, like how is he merciful when he sends people to hell for eternity? or how is he all-knowing when you identify a certain action as a mistake. etc etc.

[pavlosmarcos]

Why do you care?Because I want mankind to continue, with all the religious nutjobs about, each one of them willing to kill and die for their god, this is not very likely at the moment.
If we can understand how this mind virus afflicts them, then we are better able to cure it, before it becomes to late.

[ggazoo]

Because I want mankind to continue, with all the religious nutjobs about, each one of them willing to kill and die for their god, this is not very likely at the moment.
If we can understand how this mind virus afflicts them, then we are better able to cure it, before it becomes to late.

Considering that Christianity is continuing to grow, that isn't going to happen.

[pavlosmarcos]

Considering that Christianity is continuing to grow, that isn't going to happen.Where!

[ggazoo]

Where!


Well, the "secularization thesis"is now largely discredited. Christianity's growth has been explosive.

There are now six times more Anglicans in Nigeria alone than there are in all of the U.S. There are more Presbyterians in Ghana than in the U.S. and Scotland combined. Korea has gone from 1 percent to 40 percent Christian in a hundred years, and experts believe the same thing is happening in China. If there are half a billion Chinese Christians fifty years from now, that will change the course of human history.

Now, because of the vitality of religious faith in the world, efforts to suppress or control it often serve only to make it stronger (ie. when the Chinese Communists expelled Western missionaries during WW II, they thought that they were killing off Christianity; instead, it just strengthened it). Robust religious beliefs dominate the world. There is no reason to expect that to change.

[pavlosmarcos]

Well, the "secularization thesis"is now largely discredited. Christianity's growth has been explosive.

There are now six times more Anglicans in Nigeria alone than there are in all of the U.S. There are more Presbyterians in Ghana than in the U.S. and Scotland combined. Korea has gone from 1 percent to 40 percent Christian in a hundred years, and experts believe the same thing is happening in China. If there are half a billion Chinese Christians fifty years from now, that will change the course of human history.

Now, because of the vitality of religious faith in the world, efforts to suppress or control it often serve only to make it stronger (ie. when the Chinese Communists expelled Western missionaries during WW II, they thought that they were killing off Christianity; instead, it just strengthened it). Robust religious beliefs dominate the world. There is no reason to expect that to change.
and the sources please, it's just your ramblings, without several sources to verify it.

[Medicine*Woman]

Considering that Christianity is continuing to grow, that isn't going to happen.
*************
M*W: Christianity may be growing in places such as Brasil and certain in certain parts of Africa, but that doesn't make-up for its progressive demise in the rest of the world.

[ggazoo]

and the sources please, it's just your ramblings, without several sources to verify it.

On the growth of Christianity in the non-Western world, see Philip Jenkin's The Next Christendom, or Whose Religion Is Christianity by Lamin Sanneh, for starters.

And for how many sociologist are now backing away from the secularization thesis, you might want to pick up The Desecularization of the World: Religion and World Politics, written by a Mr. Peter L. Berger.

[JDawg]

Well, the "secularization thesis"is now largely discredited. Christianity's growth has been explosive.

There are now six times more Anglicans in Nigeria alone than there are in all of the U.S. There are more Presbyterians in Ghana than in the U.S. and Scotland combined. Korea has gone from 1 percent to 40 percent Christian in a hundred years, and experts believe the same thing is happening in China. If there are half a billion Chinese Christians fifty years from now, that will change the course of human history.

Now, because of the vitality of religious faith in the world, efforts to suppress or control it often serve only to make it stronger (ie. when the Chinese Communists expelled Western missionaries during WW II, they thought that they were killing off Christianity; instead, it just strengthened it). Robust religious beliefs dominate the world. There is no reason to expect that to change.

Islam is growing faster than Christianity. Just so ya know.

Anyway, are you rooting for this kind of madness, GG? Are you actually hoping that Christianity takes over the world? I can't imagine you would be. Why isn't it enough to have your beliefs and let the rest of the world be?

[ggazoo]

Islam is growing faster than Christianity. Just so ya know.

Two case studies are instructive. In 1900, Christians comprised 9 percent of the African population and were outnumbered by Muslims four to one. Today, Christians comprise 44 percent of the population, and in the 1960s passed Muslims in number. This explosive growth is now beginning in China. Christianity is growing not only among the peasantry, but also among social and cultural establishment, including the Communist party. At the current rate of growth, withing 30 years Christians will constitute 30 percent of the Chinese population of 1.5 billion.

Anyway, are you rooting for this kind of madness, GG? Are you actually hoping that Christianity takes over the world? I can't imagine you would be. Why isn't it enough to have your beliefs and let the rest of the world be?

I'm not; I was answering a question.

Let me ask you this: How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?

[Saquist]

Seriously...how many more threads can we have by an atheist trying to use science to disprove God? At what point are we going to realize that it is a useless, baseless argument that has no standing in any science whatsoever?

I'm not a believer, but it shames me to see atheists actually trying to play this game. There is no way to disprove God. You can't do it! It's no different that trying to disprove ghosts! Or demons! Or bigfoot!

I would rather see intelligent conversations regarding the real issues, like where religion belongs in society, what role it plays and/or should play in politics, what role atheism should play in both, ect., ect.. We shouldn't be lowering ourselves to trying to disprove God, when we all know it can't be done. No matter what science you throw at a theist, they can always push God back further in the timeline. Evolution? Oh, OK, well, he programmed us for it. Big Bang? Oh, well, he did that. Quantum physics? Oh, well, that's just the framework that he built.

See? There's no amount of logic that works, because the furthest back science can go doesn't explain away any god.

So let's talk about the real stuff. C'mon, guys, we're better than this.

A very reasonable post. (of course from an atheist perspective) but reasonable nonetheless.

But it is something of a obscession for the very young. I'm sure the more mature realize this is a study which science is ill equipped to answer one way or the other.

[JDawg]

Two case studies are instructive. In 1900, Christians comprised 9 percent of the African population and were outnumbered by Muslims four to one. Today, Christians comprise 44 percent of the population, and in the 1960s passed Muslims in number. This explosive growth is now beginning in China. Christianity is growing not only among the peasantry, but also among social and cultural establishment, including the Communist party. At the current rate of growth, withing 30 years Christians will constitute 30 percent of the Chinese population of 1.5 billion.


I read a study not all that long ago claiming that Islam was growing faster than the population was growing. Seriously, I'm not making it up.

Let me ask you this: How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?

Because I can see where these religions got their ideas from. Islam is, in many ways, a funhouse mirror reflection of Christianity. In turn, Christianity is basically a ripoff of Judaism. Joseph and Jesus are practically the same character. And both of those religions have roots in pagan religions that predate them. Especially Christianity, in which Jesus seems to be a photocopy of Horus, the Egyptian Sky/Sun god.

No, I cannot know if there is a god out there, but I can tell you that the current religions are nothing more than the most recent incarnations of paganism. And it doesn't take superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality, it just takes some research. If these people did the research themselves, they'd probably come to the same conclusion.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Difficult to dissuade the religious. Best not to argue god existence period. Both sides arguing over something they can't prove. Absolutely primitive behavior, something this era will be remembered for if humanity survives that long.