REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Any atheists in here?

POSTED BY: BLACKCOLLARBROWNCOAT
UPDATED: Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 30115
PAGE 4 of 4

Sunday, March 5, 2006 4:18 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by nwuksteve:
Additionally there is some evidence (eg. injustice, suffering, etc) to suggest that the supposedly caring gods of some popular religions don't exist.

Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that there are no gods. The idea that my position is as much a matter of faith as the position of thiests is simply false.

Um, you just said that you believe that no memeber of a group (gods) exists because there is evidence against some memebers.

How is that logical?

Not all saints exist but some are definitively real. If I burned all records pertaining to them and made sure there was no evidence they existed they would still exist. Thomas More wouldn't suddenly wink out.

Remember faith is something that is not based on either:
1 Material evidence, which you have said you do not have supporting your claims against most gods.
or:
2 Logical Proof, you don't have a logical proof.

Or did I miss something?

-

Faith is faith. And a total lack of evidence is a total lack of evidence. These are always true, for obvious reasons, and do not depend upon what the faith or the (lack of) evidence relate to.

If you've got no evidence against Nyx and you believe she doesn't exist that is as much a matter of faith as someone who claims the Christain God does exist.

-

I like the name Nyx, it's got a great ring to it. Fun myths surrounding her too. Pleasant fictions, or so I believe.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 6, 2006 10:00 AM

NWUKSTEVE


Quote:
Originally posted by nwuksteve:
Additionally there is some evidence (eg. injustice, suffering, etc) to suggest that the supposedly caring gods of some popular religions don't exist.
Clearly this part of my statement alone is not strong evidence that there are no gods. I probably shouldn't have included it. But it's not like many people believe in the existance of uncaring gods.

And my point was not to try to provide logical proof that there are no gods. The point is my decision is based on reasoning, not faith.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 9:05 AM

HOTPOINT


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I do not believe that non-belief in god requires proof, I have never said I do. (If I did it was accidental and I would appreciate it greatly if you would point out where I said it.) I have repeatedly said that I believe it doesn't require proof.

I have however said that failure to accept a thing is different than accepting the negation of that thing.


I'm afraid you are still rather missing the point to a large extent. The issue is, and always has been, that you have continued to equate two positions as being equivalent, and statements of "faith".

(a) I believe God exists
(b) I believe God does not exist

Now what is the problem with your analysis? The problem is that whilst it is conceivable that proof for (a) might exist the same is not true for (b).

It is fundamentally irrational to equate (a) and (b) and treat them as two sides of the same coin for the simple reason that, unlike the former, the latter does not require proof simply because no proof for it can actually exist.

You are setting a game in which only one side can "win" and trying to make out they are equal.

The contention that a negative can be proved is implicit in your continuing comments such as:

"Unless there is logical proof or material evidence backing up the non-existence of god (which I'd hope someone would have brought up by now if they knew of it) that belief is one of faith."

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
This is what I have said all along and you know it.


The fact you are still making arguments that indicate a requirement of the non-theist to produce proof of the non-existance of God shows otherwise.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If I did say what you claim I said I certainly didn't mean it, but I do not remember saying it and after looking through all of my posts I have yet to come across a place where I did say it. You have also not quoted a place where I said that.


I have repeatedly produced quotes which show an implicit contention of the same, perhaps you need to think through the implications of where your arguments lead.

Please note I'm not the only person who reached the same conclusion regarding your contentions about faith.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The burden of proof for existence lies on the theist, but a lack of that proof is not reason to believe in the non-existence. A lack of proof against a belief (even a belief in non-existence) is not a reason to conclude that belief is correct.


Lack of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence but can you not see that there is a central difference between believing something is untrue because no evidence exists, and no evidence can exist, and believing something is true, despite the lack of evidence even though such evidence is possible?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If one wants to take a stance either way without proof they must show evidence or admit faith. If they do not have evidence and they deny that they take it on faith they are being dishonest (perhaps even to themselves.)


Again your stance fails to understand that you just cannot compare the two in this way.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
No. I equated belief with god with belief in a universe without a god by claiming that unless there is evidence to support them both of those beliefs require faith.

You seem very intent on putting words into my mouth. I have repeatedly said that non-belief is something that requires neither proof nor faith.


Excuse me? In one paragraph you write "unless there is evidence to support them both of those beliefs require faith" and then immediately underneath write "I have repeatedly said that non-belief is something that requires neither proof nor faith" how on earth do you square these positions?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

The burden of proof lies with whoever has a belief. Only non-believers do not have the burden put upon them. It does not matter whether the position is a positive or a negative, only whether or not it is a position of belief.


The burden of proof lies with those for whom such proof is possible.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
According to whom? Can you show me where it says that absence of proof is proof of absence?

The truth is that I've never heard anyone outside of this thread claim that is logical. Of course that doesn't mean it is not logical. But I've seen some compelling evidence it is not and if you wish me to believe that it is than I would like to see a proof of that.

Surely if that is both true and as widely accepted as you claim it is there must be a proof because if there isn't proof it would be self-refuting, wouldn't it?


When did I ever say, or even imply, anything of the sort?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

I agree with that. The whole point is that it is total drivel and it was arrived at with your logic.


The conclusion was drivel because the initial premise was unfounded not because of the logic applied after that point.

Your supposed refutation is akin to arguing that basic math doesn't work because you tried to work out the circumferance of a circle by multiplying Pi by its diametre and got the wrong answer, while the real reason you got the wrong answer was because you started on the premise that Pi=3

Remember in logic, like computing, garbage in garbage out.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I didn't say anything about a creator, I said something about a property of that (potentially hypothetical) universe.


You said "there is no proof that a universe without a god exists" which clearly is a starting premise.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Nice try but I didn't bring in the causation of the universe. That was your little addition and was not part of my premise.


So why did you say "there is no proof that a universe without a god exists"?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
And I you. Perhaps one of us will leave here informed.


Frankly I have my doubts but you might surprise me yet

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I do not dispute that that may be the case, but I would like examples. It would certainly be helpful to me to have such examples but you have yet to provide them.


The problem I think is that you fail to see the implications of your own arguments.


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Tell me, why did you not respond to the eunuch argument? It is at the core of what we are discussing. If it does indeed lead to a contradiction, as I am reasonably sure it does, than it shows that one can not use absence of proof as reason to believe in absence.


Because I never maintained that absence of evidence was evidence of absence, my issue with your argument is that it equates two positions that cannot be equated in the way you think they can.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If it does not lead to a contradiction I would very much like to know what it does lead to because it looks like a contradiction to me.


I hope you get it now. If not I'll try again.


...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, March 8, 2006 12:49 PM

SWORDOFWHEDON


I think what everyone is missing is this:

You cannot prove there is no god

You CAN say however that individual, specific gods with known behaviors (as stated in holy texts) don't exist with the same certainty that gets assigned to the theory of gravity(as certain as is currently possible)

For example, the Bible is without doubt, not the work of an omnipotent being. If it were, there would not be a single factual, historical, or scientific error. There are scads of all of the above. The Bible is irrefutably not the work of a God

A perfect being would see the need for a second covenant with mankind from the beginning of time, therefore not make the original mistake (angry god phase) in the first place. It's an impossibility

Either

1- God is not all-knowing/seeing, and therefore not much of a god
2- God is a sadist, who creates beings he has known from the beginning of time will anger him, and be sent for eternal torment, and therefore unworthy of worship in the first place under Christian principles.
3- The Christian God simply does not exist, as both 1 and 2 would cancel out Jehovah as accepted by Christians.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 9, 2006 9:57 AM

BLACKCOLLARBROWNCOAT


Crybaby Chris isn't going to get your point, maybe you should give it up, as it seems pretty hopeless. You should just let him continue his downward spiral by himself.

BTW, I posted a good deal of his comments on another board, full of logic loving folks. I'm interested to see what they say about it all.

I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch me soar.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 9, 2006 11:26 AM

ANNA


I haven't read any of the other (and plentiful) posts in this thread, but to address the original question, I'm an(other) atheist :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 5:10 AM

GARYPRYKE


I guess I am too but I often wish I wasn't. Religion makes people feel safe.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 5:34 AM

FLETCH2


Do you have the same relationship with your father as an adult as you had when you were a teenager? Was that the same as the one when you were an infant or a baby? I'm guessing not. Were those relationships wrong at that time and is that why they were changes? Or is it that as you changed the need arose to change the relationship?

You could look at the various covenants and view them as rules laid down by an adult to a developing child (in this case mankind.) It starts out with a lot of "thou shalt nots" in much the same way as an adult tells a baby no and doesnt bother to explain why. "Don't play with matches" is a commandment.

Later as the child gets older you try and explain more about the reasons and you try and teach responsibility and social skills. The whole Jesus ministry in a nutshell is "don't be a jerk, treat other people like you want to be treated." That sounds like the kind of stuff a parent tells a 10 or 11 year old.

Personally, I'm hoping we get the car keys soon.

As for those folks expecting a nice quick judgement day so they can be rewarded for being holyier than thou jerks, the bad news is that on this timeline we're probably looking at around another 120,000 years before that happens.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 9:00 AM

SWORDOFWHEDON


Quote:
Do you have the same relationship with your father as an adult as you had when you were a teenager? Was that the same as the one when you were an infant or a baby? I'm guessing not. Were those relationships wrong at that time and is that why they were changes? Or is it that as you changed the need arose to change the relationship?


So by your reckoning, he simply got bored with wantonly punishing? How is that the action of a just god worthy of worship? Sorry, it doesn't work. The supposed god could have created man at any point in development, see option #2(sadism)

Let's use your child analogy shall we?

You have a kid, and you tell the kid over and over again from the minute it's born not to poop its diaper or you'll get a beating (they don't understand english, but for the sake of arguement let's say they do). Now that child is physically incapable of doing so till at least 18 months of age, because that's how they're biologically designed, yet you horsewhip them anyway every time it happens.

That's what you're saying your god did. He created a being he knew would anger and displease him, and punishes them for doing what he made them to do.

Doesn't wash.

Quote:
As for those folks expecting a nice quick judgement day so they can be rewarded for being holyier than thou jerks, the bad news is that on this timeline we're probably looking at around another 120,000 years before that happens.


From where are you pulling that number?

The Second Coming has been predicted at least once a generation for the last 2 millenia. It ain't happening. It's all a scam.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 9:11 AM

ANNA


Kind of off topic I know, but after the Noah's Ark incident, didn't God say he/she/it (I'm not being rude by saying that, why should I assume that if there's a god, it's a man?) would never flood the earth again?

Thanks for, you know, GIANT TSUNAMIS then, just wetting the ol' whistle.


I could be wrong of course, I don't know anything at all about the bible.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 9:31 AM

SWORDOFWHEDON


Quote:
Kind of off topic I know, but after the Noah's Ark incident, didn't God say he/she/it (I'm not being rude by saying that, why should I assume that if there's a god, it's a man?) would never flood the earth again?


Gotta be fair here, 100% of the globe has not been covered with water....ever, so who knows if he's broken it or not?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 2:25 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Anna:
didn't God say he/she/it (I'm not being rude by saying that, why should I assume that if there's a god, it's a man?)

God isn't a man by the virtue that any god in a monotheistic religion is the only one so by definition has no Gender. God can't be an ‘it’ either, as any god can't be said to be an object.

English is a funny language, man for instance never used to be gender specific, originally it was more like the word ‘person’, not male or female genders but Human in general.

It's only later with the introduction of more pervasive gender bias that started to push man and men to being gender specific, while keeping its non-gender specific usage to indicate humans as a race.

It’s funny but people seem to think that the gender bias in the language is inherent, that the words used to describe the Human race are inherently masculine, which is actually the wrong way round. They were there already, the gender bias was added.

But to get back on track:
I prefer to simply say God. Rather than say "didn't God say he..." I’d say "didn't God say that God..." which is more correct IMHO as you don't need to qualify it, or perpetuate the gender bias.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 3:27 PM

ANNA


Tom Lehrer = God.
(Hey, I think we also just solved our problem!)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 3:32 PM

CITIZEN


All the world seems in tune
On a spring afternoon,
When we're poisoning pigeons in the park.
Ev'ry Sunday you'll see
My sweetheart and me,
As we poison the pigeons in the park.
...
And maybe we'll do
In a squirrel or two,
While we're poisoning pigeons in the park.




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 3:58 PM

ANNA


Oh the Catholics hate the Protestants, and the Protestants hate the Catholics, and the Hindus hate the Muslims, aaannnnd everybody hates the Jews.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 4:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I don't hate nobody just 'cause of what group they hangs with. I gets annoyed if someone gets in my face.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 4:29 PM

ANNA


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't hate nobody just 'cause of what group they hangs with. I gets annoyed if someone gets in my face.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.


Oh, don't worry, I'm not being a total jerk or anything, it's just from a satirical song by the excellently hilarious Tom Lehrer

Ah, sorry for any confusion or offence!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 4:37 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I'm not sure that 'group' human nouns ('man' is the measure of all things) are necessarily gender neutral. 'Humanity is' or 'humans are' would work as well and is gender neutral, but wasn't selected.

Other languages are funny in that they assign sexes to inanimate objects (la table = the she-table). English has certain shortcomings too. There is no gender neutral generic human singular. So if one doesn't want to say 'he' or 'she', people usually dodge and say 'they'.

My Chinese friends have tried to explain to me the basics of Chinese. Apparently there are no genders, singulars or plurals, past present or future tenses. It is (if I understood right) developed in context. So one might say 'four person go to market yesterday'.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 4:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I LIKE Tom Lehrer and I thought I knew his songs. Which one is that?


Pollution, poluution, wear a gas mask and veil,
And you'll be all right long as you don't inhale.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 4:51 PM

CITIZEN


Rue:
As I understand it many of the Genderised references to people in general were Gender neutral, but they became 'genderised' later on.
Quote:
I LIKE Tom Lehrer and I thought I knew his songs. Which one is that?

National Brotherhood Week

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 5:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


THANKS !!


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 10, 2006 6:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


First we got the Bomb and that was good
'Cause we like peace and... motherhood
Then Russia got the Bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's next?

Then France got the Bomb, but but don't you grieve That they're on our side (I believe)
Then China got the Bomb, but have no fears
'Cause they can't wipe us out for at least five years!

Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right!
One for the black and one for the white.

Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too, just to use on you-know-who.
So Israel's getting tense, wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd" says the Psalm, but JUST IN CASE...
We're gonna get a Bomb!

Luxembourg is next to go,
Then after that is Monaco.
We'll try and stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the Bomb!

Not much has changed- has it???

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:48 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Hotpoint

Before I even read all of your post I'd like to know something. You claim it is possible to prove that god exists. Would you care to explain how?

If god came up and had a chat with you would that prove that god exists? If that is all it takes I can point to quite a few people who will tell you god did just that.

If you died and then met a glowing being would that prove god exists? It wouldn't in my book. There absolutely no reason to assume that life after death in itself has anything to do with god, and glowing stuff is hardly godliness.

There is one verified case in which Mary came to some kids in a hallucination (well the word used is "vision" but I prefer my version) and told them that in a specific place at a specific time on a specific day there would be a miracle.

Sure enough the sky changed colors and the sun bounced around in the sky like a ping pong ball.

Daytime auroras are very, very rare (quick research turned up only two in the past 400 years, there are probably more though) and the atmospheric inversions required to make the sun appear to bounce around like that are quite rare as well. Obviously it would only appear to do that from certain angles, which makes it even more unlikely because even if the hallucination had randomly gotten the time right if the location wrong the thing wouldn't have worked right.

But it is hardly proof of god. I mean if simply having a vision say, "Go there and you will receive a sign," and then having a sign appear there and then were enough to prove the existence of a god we would all believe in god without hesitation several times over.

Obviously we don't.

So what would it take? You seem very intent on claiming that it is possible to prove that god exists, but you don't seem to want to back it up. Why not? I mean if it can be proved than by definition there must be a way to prove it. Unlike most things in this thread there is no place for debate on this point. If something can be proved there has to be a way to prove it, and for it to be valid that way is supposed to be agreed upon before the proof takes place.

If you are right then there must be an example.

But what is it? I mean the good old fashioned miracles don’t work anymore.

Virgin birth isn't impossible, as time goes on we find more and more species, even warm blooded ones, that do it on a semi-regular basis and on probability if we wait long enough it should happen at least once in humans. Even virgin birth of a male child is hardly impossible (just very, very unlikely as most XXYs can't have children and if one did give unfertilized birth it could very well be an XXY itself or even an XX.)

Coming back from the dead isn't a big deal these days. A kid around here was dead for a full two hours and didn't even suffer brain damage.

We've seen the ground rise into the sky, we've seen it rain rocks, we've seen the sun go out, we've the "fires of hell" create rivers of flame that destroy everything in their path. And that's just with volcanoes.

The moon turns to blood every lunar eclipse and the stars fall from the sky at regular intervals.

The ocean rises up, the earth shakes, and people heal others with their hands on national television while doctors tell us about the placebo effect.

There are no miracles left in the world and even if something did happen that somehow seemed like an act of god (can't imagine what it would be) as is well known everything falls under the heading of science. It would be studied and explained and there would be no need to bring god into the equation even if it came with a signature that said, "God did this."

-

I personally can think of no possible situation that would prove the existence of any god I have ever heard of.

But obviously you can, so tell me, please, what would it take? If god can be proved, which you claim repeatedly, how can it be done?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:51 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


This is irksome.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:30 AM

ANNA


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First we got the Bomb and that was good
'Cause we like peace and... motherhood
Then Russia got the Bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's next?

Then France got the Bomb, but but don't you grieve That they're on our side (I believe)
Then China got the Bomb, but have no fears
'Cause they can't wipe us out for at least five years!

Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right!
One for the black and one for the white.

Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too, just to use on you-know-who.
So Israel's getting tense, wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd" says the Psalm, but JUST IN CASE...
We're gonna get a Bomb!

Luxembourg is next to go,
Then after that is Monaco.
We'll try and stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the Bomb!

Not much has changed- has it???

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.



That was my second choice of song to post
Buuuuut I'm very off topic so I'll stop now

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:33 AM

HOTPOINT


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Hotpoint

Before I even read all of your post I'd like to know something. You claim it is possible to prove that god exists. Would you care to explain how?


Well one possible way to prove the existance of a God would be if science discovered that life required a creator. Or another might be if there was something intrinsic to the universe that required with certainty "divine intervention" or it could not take place.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If god came up and had a chat with you would that prove that god exists? If that is all it takes I can point to quite a few people who will tell you god did just that.


The problem there would be in that situation I, or the others, could just be insane or the victim of a practical joke. Human senses aren't reliable enough to consider that "proof".

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If you died and then met a glowing being would that prove god exists? It wouldn't in my book. There absolutely no reason to assume that life after death in itself has anything to do with god, and glowing stuff is hardly godliness.


If the being was glowing I might look for an ethereal fire-extinguisher, or perhaps a Gieger-Counter, but again I could just be nuts.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
There is one verified case in which Mary came to some kids in a hallucination (well the word used is "vision" but I prefer my version) and told them that in a specific place at a specific time on a specific day there would be a miracle.


Similiar stories are told by pretty much every religion. The thing is it could easily be random chance, after all how many "visions" don't come true?

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If you are right then there must be an example.

But what is it? I mean the good old fashioned miracles don’t work anymore.


Like I said. If there was a mechanism in the universe that required a creator that would be proof of "God". Otherwise having the almighty appear one day and demonstrate "miracles" under laboratory conditions would be pretty strong evidence in my book.

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
There are no miracles left in the world and even if something did happen that somehow seemed like an act of god (can't imagine what it would be) as is well known everything falls under the heading of science. It would be studied and explained and there would be no need to bring god into the equation even if it came with a signature that said, "God did this."


But there are things that conceivably only a God could do. For instance so-called "Creation Scientists" are always on the look-out for an irreducably complex mechanism in nature that could not have evolved. So far every one they've claimed turns out in fact not to be irreducably complex but that doesn't mean for certain that will always be the case.

Show me something that could not have evolved, or been created by random chance, and I'll believe in a "creator".

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I personally can think of no possible situation that would prove the existence of any god I have ever heard of.

But obviously you can, so tell me, please, what would it take? If god can be proved, which you claim repeatedly, how can it be done?


Do the examples I've given satisfy you because I can find more readily enough?

Proving the Non-Existance of a God is certainly not possible however. For one thing even if there were some theoretical evidence (although I can't think of anything that might fit the bill) it could always be argued that an omniscient, omnipotent God faked the evidence himself to sort out the sceptics from the faithful.


...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:32 AM

ABSURDWRECKAGE


I know i'm kinda going off topic on the whole God vs. No god disscussion, but back to the top:

Mal is a christian (at least 6 years ago he was), just before he goes to take out the AA gun, and the airplane thing, he pulls out a cross necklace, kisses the cross and then goes into battle :)

He also mentions God quite a lot throughout the show.

Joss seemed to have put quite a lot of "God" into the show. We have Book for one example (even though he may be something else )

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 12, 2006 10:19 AM

SWORDOFWHEDON


Quote:
Before I even read all of your post I'd like to know something. You claim it is possible to prove that god exists. Would you care to explain how?


Get your deity to show up. Prove his omnipotence, omnicience and general creatorness, and make a legal testimony as to his opinions, wishes and endorsements. It's not any more trouble for him than not showing up. If you can't get God to do it, well, that's the problem of the theist, not the atheist.

Simple tests of godhood

Snap fingers, all sickness vanishes from the world and permanent world peace and the end of poverty.

(Wouldn't a loving god do that in the first place anyway?)

Quote:
There is one verified case in which Mary came to some kids in a hallucination (well the word used is "vision" but I prefer my version) and told them that in a specific place at a specific time on a specific day there would be a miracle.

Sure enough the sky changed colors and the sun bounced around in the sky like a ping pong ball.

Daytime auroras are very, very rare (quick research turned up only two in the past 400 years, there are probably more though) and the atmospheric inversions required to make the sun appear to bounce around like that are quite rare as well. Obviously it would only appear to do that from certain angles, which makes it even more unlikely because even if the hallucination had randomly gotten the time right if the location wrong the thing wouldn't have worked right.



Much more likely someone claimed the vision afterwards and a ton of people who want to believe backed them up.

Quote:
But what is it? I mean the good old fashioned miracles don’t work anymore.


People were ignorant of science at the time, and much simpler. The same exact events wouldn't wash today as a miracle were they to happen. They simply don't exist

Quote:
Virgin birth isn't impossible, as time goes on we find more and more species, even warm blooded ones, that do it on a semi-regular basis and on probability if we wait long enough it should happen at least once in humans


Evidence please. I think you'll find that there's nothing miraculous about it.

Quote:
Joss seemed to have put quite a lot of "God" into the show. We have Book for one example (even though he may be something else )


For the record, Joss is an atheist, which is the reason why he's so good at writing religious characters :)

As his officially endorsed High Priest(no, reallY, see me in the new Done The Impossible documentary), I invite you all to join the Church of Joss, and accept him as your personal savior of quality filmed entertainment. Our God is real, makes many public appearances, and is most importantly funny :)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL