The God Delusion - ongoing review

I see, so if someone claims to have seen a leprechaun and writes it down it has merit? :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should meet yourself more often. You are what you hate.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Atheists have yet to prove the nonexistence of God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:bugeye:

Yeah, and we've all yet to prove the nonexistence of leprechauns and invisible flying space banjos. Whatever is your point?

 

*************
M*W: It's not our place to prove the non-existence of a non-existing being. That burden of proof is on those who believe a god exists. Now, when you prove a god exists, I feel sure many atheists will opt to disprove your findings when we find out what your evidence is to support such a bogus theory.

 

You BELIEVE there is no God therefore if you wish to prove that, you must find evidence and eventually, proof.

 

That you BELIEVE there is no God. Leprechauns and flying space banjos are obviously disproved by simple science. However, God is entirely different. That is an unknown, which both sides must prove or disprove.

 

Do you believe in Zeus? Can you prove that he does not exist?

 

1) Which god exactly? (Repo touched on this in the last post).

2) How are leprechauns or flying space banjos 'disproved' by science exactly?

3) How is this god of yours 'entirely different' other than on the simple basis that it's the garbage you personally believe in?

4) To get further into the issue would require further details of this supposed entity. If for instance you believed in a god that struck people down on the spot if they blasphemed then it can be shown false if one of us tested it and said something like; "god's a knobhead".

So, to 'disprove' a notion one must have some details of what that notion actually entails. Alas I've yet to meet two theists that match up on the details and there is the problem. "Disproving" a god can therefore only be done on an individual basis. So, if you have your own personal little space fairy then give me the details and I shall go about trying to "disprove" it's existence. Of course when that's done theists fall back on their "god is beyond human comprehension" nonsense and it then dawns on you that they're ultimately just a bunch of simple minded twonks.

5) I don't "BELIEVE there is no god", I simply do not have a belief that there is. There's a difference in there, albeit one theists appear to be blind to. There might be a god, there might be a flying spaghetti monster - I do not have a belief that either does exist and will not do so until there is evidence to suggest that they do. You too undoubtedly operate in this very same manner with everything except for the one exception - which is done merely to provide you with some hope that your miserable little life isn't all for nothing. That your failures are forgiven, that everything you ever wanted to be but never will be doesn't ultimately matter because you'll get your chance to shine in life part II. Frankly I find it weak, no, pathetic.

 

Then obviously if you don't believe it is there, you believe it is not there. If I believed santa clause wasn't real, I would believe he is fake.

Which God? Any God, a higher superior being the Creator.


Therefore, my point is you have no proof that there is no God. Not that theists have much proof that there is, but certainly much more so than atheists.

 

No, but I can choose not to believe in him. However, that would be a BELIEF not a FACT.


Also, to Snake, the reason they are disproved by science is because we've been all over and haven't seen a single one.

 

That is how I feel about every creation myth I've heard so far.

They're invisible to non-believers. Prove me wrong.

 

It might be there, (whatever 'it' is and wherever 'there' is). I'm not saying anything is "fake", I am saying there is absolutely no valid reason, (other than personal emotional needs), to believe in the existence of these things that might exist without evidence to suggest they do. But not accepting a claim that lacks any and all evidence is not saying the claim is false.

The flying spaghetti monster?

Sorry, what "proof" do theists have for any claim they ever make? Do note I would advise in future you use the word "evidence" as opposed to "proof".

The thing is as time progresses theist idiocy and their gods vanish further and further into the void. It was only a short while ago where demons were blamed for all kinds of natural occurrences such as headaches. It was only a short while ago that stone, bronze and iron were dated from the supposed time of creation a few thousand years back, (from a theist perspective dinosaurs were walking the earth around 7000 years ago). The list is simply endless. All of these things have been shown false but the religious continue with their bullshit regardless.

There are some that honestly still believe that around 7000 years ago there was a man and woman in a garden alongside a talking snake. It's simple stupidity and yet here we are in the year 2008 and some believe it to be true. The lesser faithful call it "metaphor", which is the polite way of saying "bollocks", not even realising that even they dismiss the majority of the very book they claim are the words of their god. It's merely a matter of faith. The everyday average christian doesn't have as much as they would claim they do.

So, might there be some god entity? Perhaps. Is there a god entity that created the world and universe 7000 odd years ago? Absolutely not, it's scientific reality pal. The universe and our world are not 7000 years old.

See how you adopt double standards? Put your very own statement back to you with god included in the 'they'. Do you see a problem with your statement now?

As for having "been all over". Do me a favour, keep an eye on how many new species of animal are found all the time. Just check google.. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=new species found&meta=

 

Well, in fact it's an element of the scientific process - observation. The question is whether or not the observation is justified.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think it could be generously argued that the Gospels represent the position of several observers. The similarity between the Greek and Aramaic forms is high; the differences therein are those of items, not dogma. But that's an argument for another time.

Excellent words. Interestingly that's not the same Nicene Creed I've heard! Search ye the other; it may be a dragon even more fitting your spears!

Strangely, I do recite those words again these days, and yet I do not affirm the latter items you suggest. I think you would also find a surprisingly large percentage of the people around me sharing my viewpoint on the specifics. It is a surprising thing, the difference between rite and attitude.

Also, Paul was not a prophet.

:bugeye: Oh? Are they going to excommunicate me, then? Throw me out? I think you miss the "Catholic" and "apostolic" elements there. But if they will, so be it. Luther also is known to me.

Strangely, I've never heard the elements of either OT or NT that you describe being read in the Homily or anything else. The matters I've listened to have been those of spirituality, not regulation, throughout the entirely of my churchgoing experience. We do not have the "Divine Altar of the Gay Smasher" sect here, seemingly.

Yet, I thank you for your kind remembrances of Church symbology. Ah, rite.

Well, no one brings these matters up to me and I've never heard that part of Romans mentioned during any public service. If it were, I would indeed stand up and walk out, as you suggest.

Simply put, there are many positions on a great many matters in the Catholic Church; as many or more as in islam, or Judaism, or almost any other religion, I would imagine. I think you'd be quite surprised. So I don't embrace this attitude and I have no compunction whatsoever about making that clear as the topic arises. I do so by vote, speech and criticism. Yet, I don't stand up in service and yell out my complaints, though. That would be rude.

No. It is not an exclusive thing, as I think you can see.

No. They are rather without choice as yet. Atheism is a selection.

No. You'll note he diverges sharply in Romans 1:24 from the "let he who casts the first stone" stance adopted by his actual employer.

Not prophets. Followers only. Disciples. What's this prophets business? I don't accept parts of Leviticus either. I simply feel that the correspondance among Mark, Luke and Matthew are pretty good, really. It's suggestive to me, and beyond that I have faith. I believe Paul erred in places; and why Timothy was selected as canonical is a mystery (or perhaps not, if it smacks more of the political).

You seem to be feeling that I must select and affirm the entirety of my faith's precepts, purported, argued, or otherwise. I must not. Instead, I will select and choose among them according to my conscience and the original message of my actual prophet, upholding and denouncing by the tone of the message. If I am wrong in the end, so be it: but I will astound you with my heresy, if you call it so.

And, in the end, my dialectic will prevail.

Your Friend in Faith

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Geoff

 

Not really given the dating, contradictions and so on. Of course even if you did have 3 or 4 claimed observers, you would need to establish that these people were not lying, delusional, mad, on crack, or just writing an imaginative piece of fiction that they collaborated on.

The amount of claimed alien adbuctees is quite staggering, the similarity between events is staggeringly high, and so on and so forth. Does that mean you believe in alien abduction?

The good thing at least with abductees is that you can interview them personally, check their history, analyze their mental state etc etc.

How many of the above can you ever do with the couple of people that made largely contradictory claims in the gospels? A big fat zero. So why would you consider one unjustified and the other justified?

 

Yet you believe in a mysterious explosion that happened with no discernable cuase billions of years ago?

No believers have found them either.

 

With regards to leprechauns there are plenty of eye witnesses.

 

That's a rather poor strawman of the BBT. Why does adding an anthropomorphic ghost make the scenario more plausible? When we do not know how or why something has happened, the best thing to do is to admit that we do not know how or why it happened.