Mr Average said:
I don't accept your definition of atheism, sorry. Atheism is about god not being necessary. It is not about being anti- something.
Existence of God ~ Which is more rational ~ Atheism or Belief in God
- Thread starter Mr Average
- Start date
I don't accept your definition of atheism, sorry. Atheism is about god not being necessary. It is not about being anti- something.
The King said:
Getting all upset trying to cover your silly mistake...what a jock dude!
I see you have realised you cannot actually rebut the dictionary definition I gave, so are resorting to a final insult in order to try to save face.
Par for the course, I guess.
The King said:
From the rather obvious fact that life exists already. The mystery is whether it started anywhere else.
The King said:
Aquinas was writing 400 years before Newton, so if you'll excuse me, I think we can dismiss his arguments as being totally, embarrassingly medievally ignorant.
The King said:
All very well. So we ask 'what caused God' and suddenly the rule changes: "god has no cause". How remarkably convenient. What we end up with is no explanation at all. As for causality, even a cursory glance at Quantum theory will tell you causality is not the simple before-after affair it looks.
The King said:
Sounds to me like Platonism. Faith, not evidence.
The King said:
Why? Scientists imagine perfect objects all the time, without ever expecting, or requiring that they exist. They certainly do not regard these perfect objects as divine!
The King said:
Again, written some 600 years before Darwin.
The King said:
Eh? I think you are confusing 'imagine' with 'perceive'. And mathematics is full of self-consistent, imaginary structures which do not have any connection to the physical world.
The King said:
That is a remarkably arrogant statement from someone who lacks even basic knowledge of the theory evolution.
The King said:
It is not the same reasoning at all. Try this as an example, it is very similar to your sequence of events: you get up, get dressed and go to work. As you drive along the road, a kid runs out in front of you. Luckily you don't hit her. Now think about that: think of all the little things that could have gone differently that day to put that particular kid at that particular moment somewhere else.
It's almost infinite. So what was the probability that particular girl was going to be there at that time? The answer is: almost zero. But she was there! That means according to the laws of probability, God must have put her there! Of course, what's really gone wrong is the laws of probability have been misapplied.
The King said:
This is why your probability argument is wrong. It may be that all the unusual things about the Earth - it's tilt, water coverage etc. are the things that made life HAPPEN. It is certainly the case that there are an almost infinite number of alternative ways of arranging orbits, tilts, crust thickness and so on - but it is also almost certain that these combinations EXIST WITHOUT LIFE somewhere else in the universe. Somewhere in all this, a planet is BOUND to exist where everything is JUST RIGHT. Earth is certainly one of the lucky few places. So what happens? Life gets started in the place in the garden where it has the best chance of starting, and the eventual inhabitants take this as proof of their own specialness and closeness to the divine, because they can't see how hostile the rest of the garden is.
nickm said:
Naahh...its quite evident who is trying to cover what on here...dictionary rebuttal? After making an erroneous mistake abt Osmosis, common, who are you trying to kid? In the earlier thread you remarked that i should prob get more intelligent through mass "intelligence form this forum" permeating through to my skull through the theory of Osmosis. And i was quick to rebut you in saying that it should have been diffusion that you should be talking abt and no reply then and over the few months till now....
And here you are trying to cover your tracks as usual...my lil physician...
Wibble said:Thanks. I really needed your permission.
And I am not denying your right to believe in a god, just denying that there is a rational basis for your belief.
And I am very scared
You seem to be bordering on extreme blinkerdness dude...and seem to be running round in circles. You admit there could be a probability basing it on evidence here and quick to scoot off when asked the probability of God! Hahaa...you can never never proof that God does not exist and even the mathematical theory of probability supports his existence, need i argue more?
You ought to be scared dude, cos look at it this way, if God did exist, he may just "prove" that maybe there is a possibility that he exists, and for all the insults that you hv thrown i doubt he will give you a plesant experience to proof his existence. But ofcourse, knowing that you do not believe in him, you need not be afraid.
nickm said:
To not accept is your perogative Sir! =)
3 entries found for atheism.
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.
However, I am willing to concede that your definition is correct for the purpose of debate, and work from there. I believe that God is indeed necessary.
In Peace, Mr Average
ManUinOz said:
Got my "reading" back from The King and my scepticism has been strengthened on the basis of his predictions. Fair play to him though for meeting that challenge and he may yet be proved right if the predictions held for me in the stars do eventuate.
The King said:You seem to be bordering on extreme blinkerdness dude...and seem to be running round in circles. You admit there could be a probability basing it on evidence here and quick to scoot off when asked the probability of God! Hahaa...you can never never proof that God does not exist and even the mathematical theory of probability supports his existence, need i argue more?
You ought to be scared dude, cos look at it this way, if God did exist, he may just "prove" that maybe there is a possibility that he exists, and for all the insults that you hv thrown i doubt he will give you a plesant experience to proof his existence. But ofcourse, knowing that you do not believe in him, you need not be afraid.
I do not scoot off (how quaint) about anything. I am a athiest because I do not believ there is a God based on the complete lack of evidence of a God existing. I do not believe in extraterrestrial life but I do think that there is a fairly high statistical likelehood that life could have arisen on more than one planet amonst millions. There is a difference that you cannot grasp. Hardly a rarity.
Something else you seem unable to grasp is that inability to prove a negative does not prove a positive. Yet another is that you seem to think that mathematics (and you probably mean statistics) supports the existence of a God. Please explain how. I'm sure you can't but lets hear your latest insanity
BTW I am glad to see that you don't deny that the copy and paste job you inflicted on us wasn't just a load of ancient mumbo jumbo. If you deny it then please explain each of these "proofs" in your own words i.e. without the use of Google and the copy and paste function.
And I am not in the least scared for a number of reasons.
1) God does not exist.
2) If he did exist and was vindictive enough to punish people for not believing alone then I say "bring it on" because I would want no part of such a perverted ethos, no matter what the penalty.
3) See point number 1.
Mr Average said:
For what?
ManUinOz said:
So if you meet a tall dark stranger and have 3 kids by him before Christmas he may be proved right
Wibble said:
Apparently so he can debate nick
Wibble said:I do not scoot off (how quaint) about anything. I am a athiest because I do not believ there is a God based on the complete lack of evidence of a God existing. I do not believe in extraterrestrial life but I do think that there is a fairly high statistical likelehood that life could have arisen on more than one planet amonst millions. There is a difference that you cannot grasp. Hardly a rarity.
Something else you seem unable to grasp is that inability to prove a negative does not prove a positive. Yet another is that you seem to think that mathematics (and you probably mean statistics) supports the existence of a God. Please explain how. I'm sure you can't but lets hear your latest insanity
BTW I am glad to see that you don't deny that the copy and paste job you inflicted on us wasn't just a load of ancient mumbo jumbo. If you deny it then please explain each of these "proofs" in your own words i.e. without the use of Google and the copy and paste function.
And I am not in the least scared for a number of reasons.
1) God does not exist.
2) If he did exist and was vindictive enough to punish people for not believing alone then I say "bring it on" because I would want no part of such a perverted ethos, no matter what the penalty.
3) See point number 1.
There is no lack of evidence that God does not exist, there is plenty of proof but you discount every single evidence with the complete bliss of an ignorant person. How can you proof something exists to someone who will refute everything with no proper reasoning.
You have not responded with a proper explanation to the video on the statue drinking milk, made of diff materials. You keep harping on the capilary action, which may explain stone staues but not others. You hv yet to show me evidence that it was mass hysteria. You hv yet to show me evidence that astrolgy is 99.99% false. You hv yet to show me scientific proof explaining the drinking phenomenon.
For a person who speaks so much of reason and ration, you severely lack integrity. You cant prove that the evidences provided are false. Its plain stupid to keep shooting down things just bec you feel so, without an ounce to substantiate your views. You are a pretty BIG joke cos you dont seem to hv an ounce of evidence to prove your allegations right or to prove mine wrong.
Your number 2 reason shows fear in you dude. Its quite plain for those here to see.
Why are you being a coward and playing games by saying that God is vindictive if he chooses to punish you for not believeing alone. If you seriously dont believe in him, then let rip, if you hv the guts and see what happens. Why throw in conjunctuors to soften things. Pathetic and pussy footing Wibble. You will deny this as always, but being a pussy in self denial is obvious here for all to see. Be a man, afterall you dont believe in him or the reprecussions that may follow. The fear in you is enough proof that inside, you do believe that there may just be a possibility that there is a supreme power. Stop pretending and you hv demonstrated it yourself, as they always say..a dumb frog gets caught through its own mouth!
Wibble said:
As a rational worldview. To make real ethics and morality, not subjective choices. If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong, merely the opinons of an individual or a group.
To confirm our significance, our place in the universe.
I could go on...
In Peace, Mr Average.
There are plenty of strong Atheists here with lots to say. I enjoy debate, as you can tell, and I am asking again if anyone wants to go at this subject one on one with me? I will argue that belief in God makes more sense than Atheism.
5 Rounds each, with me to start. After I open with my first post, the respondent has 7 days to reply. Then same for me. 5th and final post should be final rebuttal and closure. I am happy to debate a few of you if you wish.
Good to learn share and debate.
In Peace, Mr Average.
5 Rounds each, with me to start. After I open with my first post, the respondent has 7 days to reply. Then same for me. 5th and final post should be final rebuttal and closure. I am happy to debate a few of you if you wish.
Good to learn share and debate.
In Peace, Mr Average.
Mr Average said:
Mmm...seems challenging...common Wibble, why dont try, since you do not believe in God.
Peace, Mr Average.
What do you mean by rational, my understanding is that it is based on logic. There is no logical reason to believe in a God, there are many sane reasons to believe but none are logical. A sane reason to believe in a God may be to help one deal with the death of a loved one, but this is not based on any logic. So I would distinguish rational/logical from sane.
In terms of right and wrong these are not notions which are cast in stone by some divine being but are as you alluded arrived at in terms of humans and their interaction with each other, they are in many respects opinions. There are a few basics such as the right to live in peace that all can agree on, but there is no need for a belief in a God to back this up. Any book on evolutionary psychology will explain how these basic norms are arrived at, Steven Pinkers "The Blank Slate" is worth the read.
As for your or my significance, sorry to break the bad news but in terms of the universe we’re pretty meaningless, well as meaningful as any other life form, say bacteria. I derive my meaning from my friends and family, from my wonder of this amazingly interesting universe I live in and from the joy and misery that I exist.
Ain’t no world and no life but this one.
Believing in anything other than this life merely devalues this one.
What do you mean by rational, my understanding is that it is based on logic. There is no logical reason to believe in a God, there are many sane reasons to believe but none are logical. A sane reason to believe in a God may be to help one deal with the death of a loved one, but this is not based on any logic. So I would distinguish rational/logical from sane.
In terms of right and wrong these are not notions which are cast in stone by some divine being but are as you alluded arrived at in terms of humans and their interaction with each other, they are in many respects opinions. There are a few basics such as the right to live in peace that all can agree on, but there is no need for a belief in a God to back this up. Any book on evolutionary psychology will explain how these basic norms are arrived at, Steven Pinkers "The Blank Slate" is worth the read.
As for your or my significance, sorry to break the bad news but in terms of the universe we’re pretty meaningless, well as meaningful as any other life form, say bacteria. I derive my meaning from my friends and family, from my wonder of this amazingly interesting universe I live in and from the joy and misery that I exist.
Ain’t no world and no life but this one.
Believing in anything other than this life merely devalues this one.
seanoc said:
YOU SAID Peace, Mr Average.
and to you =)
YOU SAID What do you mean by rational, my understanding is that it is based on logic.
That is one correct definition, yes. What I actually intended to say is that the belief in God as a worldview appears the most sane and reasonable view to take, as opposed to taking the view that there is no creator being.
YOU SAID In terms of right and wrong these are not notions which are cast in stone by some divine being
I think they just might be.
YOU SAID but are as you alluded arrived at in terms of humans and their interaction with each other, they are in many respects opinions.
That's my point. Without an external provider of right and wrong, the concept of morality falls flat. You say this is right, I say that. He says this, that group say that. The majority are right? or are they? Is killing another wrong, if so why? Do you see what I mean?
YOU SAID There are a few basics such as the right to live in peace that all can agree on,
If someone does not agree with your statement above, are they in the wrong or are you? Where do we get rights from anyway? Who gives us the right?
YOU SAID Any book on evolutionary psychology will explain how these basic norms are arrived at, Steven Pinkers "The Blank Slate" is worth the read.
Can you give me a break down?
YOU SAID As for your or my significance, sorry to break the bad news but in terms of the universe we’re pretty meaningless
I disagree here. I feel that we are both significant beings. Not just the end result of countless processes.
YOU SAID well as meaningful as any other life form, say bacteria. I derive my meaning from my friends and family, from my wonder of this amazingly interesting universe I live in and from the joy and misery that I exist.
Would you say that any and all "meaning" is subjective then?
YOU SAID Ain’t no world and no life but this one.
Fact or belief? If belief, then no different in essence than the belief in a creator.
YOU SAID Believing in anything other than this life merely devalues this one.
Please elaborate.
In Peace, Mr Average
I know many sane people that believe in God, I know many other sane people that do not, faith is by it's very nature entirely subjective, some people feel they need a God in their lives, some don't.Mr Average said:
Yes it is subjective, take war as an example, things happen in war situations which people would find to be entirely unacceptable at peacetime. There are societal norms, but these do often break down, genocide for example, a completely evil thing but it does happen, is that because the people who condoned and perpetrated it were uniquely evil people? What made them uniquely evil? Were all who supported Hitler evil? Many muslims believe George Bush to be evil? Are they right? ( I'm not equating the two , just examples) Is it wrong to steal to feed malnourished children?Mr Average said:
People have certain notions about life, many natural, many nurtured. To say we get these from God leaves open the gaping hole that my God says this and your God says that. Have absolutely no doubt in your mind but the fanatics who flew those planes into the twin towers completely and utterly believed they were morally right and they would be rewarded by their God. Were they, I don't think so.Mr Average said:
Sorry but tis beyond the scope of this argument, but if inquiry into human nature and trying to figure out the mess that is humankind is what interests you then it is a must read. Do a google on himor evolutionary psychology.Mr Average said:
Yes, but ther are common traits in all humans, love of children, need for status among peers, enjoyment of sex...Mr Average said:
I base my opinions of this world upon knowledge acquired from scientific means, so I would say fact.Mr Average said:
My life is unique, I have only this one.Mr Average said:
Anything that is not unique loses some of its value.
If Giggsy scored goals similar to the one against the gooners in 99 every week, the one in 99 would be much less special. For the same reason we ache when we lose those we love, they were unique to us and we to them.
The King said:There is no lack of evidence that God does not exist, there is plenty of proof but you discount every single evidence with the complete bliss of an ignorant person. How can you proof something exists to someone who will refute everything with no proper reasoning.
I have never seen anything that in any way even suggests that there is a suoernatural of any kind. Your milk drinking statue isn't evidence of anything other than your tenuous grip on reality. If evidence came to light that was testable in a meaningful way which then suggested that there was a supernatural sugar daddy then I would consider the possibility.
You have not responded with a proper explanation to the video on the statue drinking milk, made of diff materials.
Simple. They are faked. And badly at that.
I have a sacred nodding glass duck which mysteriously makes water in a bowl disppear if you fancy worshipping it.
You keep harping on the capilary action, which may explain stone staues but not others. You hv yet to show me evidence that it was mass hysteria. You hv yet to show me evidence that astrolgy is 99.99% false. You hv yet to show me scientific proof explaining the drinking phenomenon.
I have no need to prove the nonexistance of such rubbish because it has not been shown to exist in the first place. With Astrology all tests conducted under testable scientific conditions have shown that predictions are innacurate and have NO predictive qualities whatsoever.Utter rubbish in other words. I suppose yopu could use it to predict the tides though. Or buy a tide table.
For a person who speaks so much of reason and ration, you severely lack integrity. You cant prove that the evidences provided are false. Its plain stupid to keep shooting down things just bec you feel so, without an ounce to substantiate your views. You are a pretty BIG joke cos you dont seem to hv an ounce of evidence to prove your allegations right or to prove mine wrong.
I do agree that there is a pretty big joke around here.
And I think you are confusing a lack of integrity with disagreement. Two similar concepts I will grant you
Your number 2 reason shows fear in you dude. Its quite plain for those here to see.
Fear
Pussy footing
Pussy in self denial
Why would I want to let rip? I think that I have been fairly clear in my statements so ranting would merely dilute my stance. Like you do with the tirades of abuse you shower of those who disagree with you.
And unlike some I feel no need to rant and rave about something that I think is a fiction.
The fear in you is enough proof that inside, you do believe that there may just be a possibility that there is a supreme power. Stop pretending and you hv demonstrated it yourself, as they always say..a dumb frog gets caught through its own mouth!
Yet again you have it 100% wrong. Like most people some things concern me from time to timebut the fear of supernatural retribution is not one of them.
And I would avoid anyone who says anything a nonsensical as "a dumb frog gets caught through its own mouth!" because they are obviously a bit of a nutter. If they
after they say it then get an AVO as soon as possible because they are probably a stalker or a serial killer.Mr Average said:
Why do you need a God to form a value set such as ethics. I think ethics, religion and God are a human invention so 1 can quite easily exist without the other. And do.
And we have no particular significance in the universe. Why would we?
The King said:
Surely a typo
The King said:
Not sure why all the timing rules? And the "debate" seems to be going just fine anyway.
I'm also happy to let seanoc and Mr Average get on with it for the moment. I don't really care what other people believe but your insane ramblings can't be left unchallenged.
BTW I think that I have supernatural abilities and can see into the future. I envisage a post that involves a large portion of copy and pasting combined with abuse. Uncanny huh?
Mr Average said:
OK, here is my take. My question is this: what is god/religion for? Why do we need him?
Is it to tell us how we came to be? Darwin taught us why we no longer need a god for that.
Is it to tell us right from wrong? There are systems of morality that are not based on religion - evolution gives good explanations for altruism and familial bonding for example ('Honour they father and mother'). And I believe there are no moral absolutes anyway, they are moral conventions for the most part.
So what exactly is god for? A lot of traditional reasons no longer apply. It really only leaves heaven and feeling good about stuff.
Posted by Wibble
Simple. They are faked. And badly at that
Prove that it is fake, where is the subjective evidence that its faked?
I have no need to prove the nonexistance of such rubbish because it has not been shown to exist in the first place. With Astrology all tests conducted under testable scientific conditions have shown that predictions are innacurate and have NO predictive qualities whatsoever
Again, where is the statistical data to prove that Astrology is inaccurate, been asking for it for a long time now. Secondly, which test has been conducted, verified and documented the NON EXISTENCE of God?
Since you wanted a challenge, i would appreciate if you could substantiate your disclaimers with evidence, data to support your notions.
Oh and as for fear, we can see it in you. So please do not hide it by your smilies, it looks pretty pathetic. As i mentioned, if you do not believe in God, then let it rip..no harm right, afterall you will not be insulting anyone in this forum letalone anyone in this existence?
Simple. They are faked. And badly at that
Prove that it is fake, where is the subjective evidence that its faked?
I have no need to prove the nonexistance of such rubbish because it has not been shown to exist in the first place. With Astrology all tests conducted under testable scientific conditions have shown that predictions are innacurate and have NO predictive qualities whatsoever
Again, where is the statistical data to prove that Astrology is inaccurate, been asking for it for a long time now. Secondly, which test has been conducted, verified and documented the NON EXISTENCE of God?
Since you wanted a challenge, i would appreciate if you could substantiate your disclaimers with evidence, data to support your notions.
Oh and as for fear, we can see it in you. So please do not hide it by your smilies, it looks pretty pathetic. As i mentioned, if you do not believe in God, then let it rip..no harm right, afterall you will not be insulting anyone in this forum letalone anyone in this existence?
seanoc said:
Why do you need logic to believe in God?
Yest, i had the privilege of meeting a globally renowened person called "Amma", she is affectionately known as the hugging saint. I discovered that she was given the honorary "Gandhi King" award for Non Violence in 2002 at the UN General Assembly. Previous awardees were Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela and world renowned primatologist Dr Jane Goodall. So i suppose this would be a logical and sane ceremony to honour someone who has worked a lot for mankind ot just a religious thingy.
Her message was simple, to help and love everyone on the planet and to bring peace to this world. She has a huge following and she does not talk abt God, idols or religion. Her simple message urges everyone to see each other as their own and to love everyone without descrimination. She has numerous charities throughout the world and it was most surprising that her "aides" at the ceremoney were all Whites.
So i ask you the question, how many athesist are there in the world, who genuinely work for the upliftment of men? How many are there who do charity globally to help the poor and diseased? What is the number vs spiritual leaders or religions? The numbers would hardly match up and do prove me wrong in this.
The concept of God may be unnecc to many. But the people who do good things in the name of God, are they necc? Ofcourse they are. Its not enough, just sitting on a chair and keep asking for scientific proof that God exists. What hv they done for humanity on a global scale or hv they changed a persons life? Very little? Ofcourse there are individual athesist with a good heart, but the question is abt reaching out to lives globally and abt sacrificing ones own life to grow the life of others.
True believers in God talk only of Kindness and love towards all living beings. If so much good work is being done to transform the lives of an ordinary man, through the name of God, why not i ask? Do you need logic to help a poor soul? Do you need rational thoughts to give someone love?
If God really does not exist, then i suppose all these great souls who hv devoted their lives to helping the poor and destitute are fools. The highest ordain as prescribed by God, is selfless service to mankind. And if these lofty souls, who hv put aside their own lives to change the lives of millions are stupid? Just ask yourself this question.
Many on here hv a myopic view of God and religion but do not see the extent of work being done in his name by all the religions. You can easily say God does not exist, but if you look at lofty people who hv devoted their lives to serving humanity like Mother Theresa, it would not be wrong to see her as God, afterall God is love.
The King said:Posted by Wibble
Prove that it is fake, where is the subjective evidence that its faked?
I don't need to. The onus of proof is on you since you state that these ludicrous drinking statue existed. There is of course no real proof. To guote nick "Nobody believes you. Nobody".
Again, where is the statistical data to prove that Astrology is inaccurate, been asking for it for a long time now.
There was a very simple test conducted as part of James Randi's million bucks competition. The test was set up by the Astrologer themselves (presumably because they believed this guff themselves) only to fail horribly. And it was such a simple test in comparison to the complex crap astrolgers usually predict.
Not to mention the fact that that all other astrologers have avoided the competiton (even after publically promising to win the competition in some cases). Since Astrolgers aim is to part the gullible from their cash it speaks volumes that they have all avoided trying for this easy mill
Secondly, which test has been conducted, verified and documented the NON EXISTENCE of God?
And there no test conducted that proves that Percy The Pink Elephant who carries the world on his back isn't the supreme ruler of the universe. Yet somehow the complete lack of evidence suggesting that it is so makes me suspect that there is no such elephant. Same goes for a god.
Do you really not understand the concept of rational? Or how it is almost impossible to prove a negative? Or how lack of said proof of a negative doesn't eqate to proof of any sort of a positive? Or are you trying not to understand?
Since you wanted a challenge, i would appreciate if you could substantiate your disclaimers with evidence, data to support your notions.
When did I ask for a challenge? And I have explained my arguments perfectly well for those who are capable of understanding them.
Oh and as for fear, we can see it in you. So please do not hide it by your smilies, it looks pretty pathetic. As i mentioned, if you do not believe in God, then let it rip..no harm right, afterall you will not be insulting anyone in this forum letalone anyone in this existence?
I have no fear of upsetting asupernatural being (and according to you I have already upset him/her/it) but why would I want to let rip in some childish rant? For what purpose? You sound like some school kid trying to persuade the other kids to say the new swear word you discovered. Grow up ffs.
In fact you also remind me of John Cleese in The Life of Brian, "your only making it worse for yourself"
Jehova, Jehova, Jehova
And how about this scientific test of astrology. It was published in the world renowned peer reviewed journal Nature.
@ The King
@ The KingThe King said:Why do you need logic to believe in God?
You don't. Who said you did?
Yest, i had the privilege of meeting a globally renowened person called "Amma", she is affectionately known as the hugging saint. I discovered that she was given the honorary "Gandhi King" award for Non Violence in 2002 at the UN General Assembly. Previous awardees were Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela and world renowned primatologist Dr Jane Goodall. So i suppose this would be a logical and sane ceremony to honour someone who has worked a lot for mankind ot just a religious thingy.
Do you have a point?
Her message was simple, to help and love everyone on the planet and to bring peace to this world. She has a huge following and she does not talk abt God, idols or religion. Her simple message urges everyone to see each other as their own and to love everyone without descrimination.
Excellent but what does this prove?
numerous charities throughout the world and it was most surprising that her "aides" at the ceremoney were all Whites.
Huh?
So i ask you the question, how many athesist are there in the world, who genuinely work for the upliftment of men? How many are there who do charity globally to help the poor and diseased? What is the number vs spiritual leaders or religions? The numbers would hardly match up and do prove me wrong in this.
How many aethiests have killed and murdered based on religious bigotry? How many people live with constant fear/guilt because of what god is going to do to them if the screw up? How many political decisons are based on religious bias rather than rational though? How many millions live in ignorance due to religious brainwashing? How many starving kids are brough needlessly into the world because some old guy in Rome says contraception is against Gods will? How many people live in poverty without complaining because religious leaders teach them humility and restraint based on the idea that they will be rewarded in the next life?
The concept of God may be unnecc to many. But the people who do good things in the name of God, are they necc? Ofcourse they are. Its not enough, just sitting on a chair and keep asking for scientific proof that God exists. What hv they done for humanity on a global scale or hv they changed a persons life? Very little? Ofcourse there are individual athesist with a good heart, but the question is abt reaching out to lives globally and abt sacrificing ones own life to grow the life of others.
How does the fact that there are religious people who try to do good for others in any way prove that there is a God?
True believers in God talk only of Kindness and love towards all living beings.
Yeh. Right. Two words - Twin Towers. Two more - sectarian violence. And finally 4 more - sexual abuse of minors.
If so much good work is being done to transform the lives of an ordinary man, through the name of God, why not i ask?
Why not what?
Do you need logic to help a poor soul? Do you need rational thoughts to give someone love?
No. So what?
If God really does not exist, then i suppose all these great souls who hv devoted their lives to helping the poor and destitute are fools.
Yet again you ask the question the wrong way round. However, in any even why does helping people make you a fool if there is no God and a saint if there is? Are you saying that without God that there would be no morality of rules? If so
The highest ordain as prescribed by God, is selfless service to mankind.
Is it? How do you know?
And if these lofty souls, who hv put aside their own lives to change the lives of millions are stupid?
Why would you think that they are stupid?
Just ask yourself this question.
Where is it? I see no question
Many on here hv a myopic view of God and religion but do not see the extent of work being done in his name by all the religions. You can easily say God does not exist, but if you look at lofty people who hv devoted their lives to serving humanity like Mother Theresa, it would not be wrong to see her as God, afterall God is love.
Mother Teresa was God? Are you sure?
Wibble said:I have no fear of upsetting asupernatural being (and according to you I have already upset him/her/it) but why would I want to let rip in some childish rant? For what purpose? You sound like some school kid trying to persuade the other kids to say the new swear word you discovered. Grow up ffs.
In fact you also remind me of John Cleese in The Life of Brian, "your only making it worse for yourself"
Jehova, Jehova, Jehova
Kinell...you cant prove a single thing with objective evidence and yet you hv the cheek to ask for evidence for God...ffs!
1) Video of statue consuming milk, can be seen with the naked eye. You claimed "Simple, faked and badly at that". But you have no evidence that its fake. You made a statement that its fake, based on what? What evidence? Kinell...Are you really that thick? If you dont hv evidence to prove its fake, then thats that. The phenomenon has a potential to be true at the very least. Simple cross example, if someone takes a pic of a UFO, the argument would be that UFO's could exist and its up to the scientist to prove that the pic is fake with a sound argument based on facts and detailed data. So cut the crap and show me why its fake. Hope this permeates your watery skull.
2) Astrology - A single test? Where is the proof? Show it to me. Cut all this crap you are painting an show me the money. Enough of your unsubstantiated rubbish. Second, thousands of positive astrology readings are available throughout the world. How can One test compare to a thousand psitive ones? Doesnt matter, show me the test and the dynamics of the failed test. And oh yes, your cowardice is still preventing you from taking my astrology challenge.
In summary, cut the crap and show me solid evidence to prove your assesement.
Wibble said:
It completely flew by the vacum between your shoulders didnt it?
The King said:Kinell...you cant prove a single thing with objective evidence and yet you hv the cheek to ask for evidence for God...ffs!
It is not I who is trying to prove anything so I have no need to prove anything. And why is it cheeky to ask for evidence of God? Is he going to mite those who do?
1) Video of statue consuming milk, can be seen with the naked eye. You claimed "Simple, faked and badly at that". But you have no evidence that its fake. You made a statement that its fake, based on what? What evidence? Kinell...Are you really that thick? If you dont hv evidence to prove its fake, then thats that. The phenomenon has a potential to be true at the very least. Simple cross example, if someone takes a pic of a UFO, the argument would be that UFO's could exist and its up to the scientist to prove that the pic is fake with a sound argument based on facts and detailed data. So cut the crap and show me why its fake. Hope this permeates your watery skull.
You are asserting that it happened so you show some evidence. And I don't mean that crappy video link you posted which was
Did you lobby Davis Copperfield to return the statue of Liberty when he made is disppear? If you don't believe he did it I can show you the video
2) Astrology - A single test? Where is the proof? Show it to me. Cut all this crap you are painting an show me the money. Enough of your unsubstantiated rubbish. Second, thousands of positive astrology readings are available throughout the world. How can One test compare to a thousand psitive ones? Doesnt matter, show me the test and the dynamics of the failed test. And oh yes, your cowardice is still preventing you from taking my astrology challenge.
In summary, cut the crap and show me solid evidence to prove your assesement.
Well I told you about 2 tests one of which was peer reviewed and appeared in Nature. You can't get a better source than that. And if you look I'm sure you will find more.
Interesting to note that there a grand total of nil scientific studies that show Astrology to work. BTW pseudoscientific tests reported on crackpot sites don't carry the same weight as a Nature paper I'm afraid.
Astrology challenge? Whats that? Are you offering to do my reading? If so what details do you need?
The King said:
No. Maybe you just didn't mean what you actually wrote.
Your argument was that people like Mother Teresa do "lofty" things out of love. Since you believe that God is love then this means that Mother Teresa is God (or at least that it would not be wrong to see her as such).
Bizzarre I know but that is what you wrote even if it wasn't what you meant.
Wibble said:
Cut the jazzy crap and get to the point. Where is the fecking evidence to suggest the drinking statue is fake? Apart from the video, there are tons of articles on the net abt it. So stop pussy footing which you seem to be notorious for and show the data. If you cant, as i said, just shut your gap cos you hv no evidence to suggest such crap.
Astrology, where is your data again to show its inaccurate? Which acclaimed scientific body has disclaimed this? Again, you seem to have problems finding proper evidence.
Jesus, if you do not have any data to back you up, you will just be a silly puss...put your money where your mouth is dude, and show us some credible data. As i said, its the critics role to dispell something with evidence. If that is not done, the object is genuine.
Wibble said:
Without an external check on what is right and wrong, all we are left with is opinons. Tell me, do you believe it is absoloutely 100% wrong to rape a child? Now tell me exactly why it is, without making it seem insignificant by suggesting that "in your opinon", or in the opinon of the masses it is wrong. I ask you Wibble, is it always wrong, no matter what the circumstances? If so, why?
If it is absoloutely wrong always, I put i to you, that there is absoloute morality. Please let me know your thoughts.
Please can you answer the following...
1. Does truth exist?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know
2. Does absolute moral right and wrong exist?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know
In peace, Mr Average
Wibble said:
Am i winding you up so much that you cant sleep?
I shall pardon your ignorance on this matter. You seem to have the single notion that God is an external being. Well, thats wht certain religions say. But some believe that each and every one of us have divinity inside us. God may not necc be an external being. He could be a level of super consciousness. The state of Nirvana or bliss as they say is a state of mind. When one reaches a level of consciousness where he sees himself a connected to everything in the universe and everything being part of him, he discovers true and selfless love. This stage developes into something where the worldly pleasures mean nothing to him anymore. Some call this state enlightenement. Maybe this is what being a God is, abt being all Love.
Its quite funny on how you talk abt God when you dont even have a firm understanding abt the definition of God amongst the various religions. Again, dont let things fly by your "EV" the next time!
TO seanoc
YOU SAID Yes it is subjective, take war as an example, things happen in war situations which people would find to be entirely unacceptable at peacetime. There are societal norms, but these do often break down, genocide for example, a completely evil thing but it does happen, is that because the people who condoned and perpetrated it were uniquely evil people? What made them uniquely evil? Were all who supported Hitler evil? Many muslims believe George Bush to be evil? Are they right? ( I'm not equating the two , just examples) Is it wrong to steal to feed malnourished children?
Let me ask you the following. They are loaded questions, but I cannot help that...
1. Is it absoloutely wrong to beat a man to death with your bare hands because he bumped into you in a bar?
2. Is it absoloutely wrong to rape a newborn baby?
3. Is it absoloutely wrong to go into your next door neighbours house who is an old aged pensioner, and rob her pension, and smash her face flat on the way out?
4. Is it absoloutely wrong to have sex with your best friends wife behind his back?
YOU SAID People have certain notions about life, many natural, many nurtured. To say we get these from God leaves open the gaping hole that my God says this and your God says that. Have absolutely no doubt in your mind but the fanatics who flew those planes into the twin towers completely and utterly believed they were morally right and they would be rewarded by their God. Were they, I don't think so.
I cannot and will not comment on the men that committed that horrendous act. Tell me, were they absoloutely wrong for what they did? Why, because you and the masses say so, or because it is just flat out wrong?
YOU SAID Yes, but ther are common traits in all humans, love of children, need for status among peers, enjoyment of sex...
Love of food is a fairly common trait as well. However this in no ways links to morality. Common traits are not a judgement for what is right and wrong, or are they?
YOU SAID I base my opinions of this world upon knowledge acquired from scientific means, so I would say fact.
Please offer me factual evidence which supports this, or links to where I can find it?
YOU SAID My life is unique, I have only this one.
Anything that is not unique loses some of its value.
The first statement is a belief. I disagree with the second. Remember your judgement of value is entirely subjective.
In Peace, Mr Average
YOU SAID Yes it is subjective, take war as an example, things happen in war situations which people would find to be entirely unacceptable at peacetime. There are societal norms, but these do often break down, genocide for example, a completely evil thing but it does happen, is that because the people who condoned and perpetrated it were uniquely evil people? What made them uniquely evil? Were all who supported Hitler evil? Many muslims believe George Bush to be evil? Are they right? ( I'm not equating the two , just examples) Is it wrong to steal to feed malnourished children?
Let me ask you the following. They are loaded questions, but I cannot help that...
1. Is it absoloutely wrong to beat a man to death with your bare hands because he bumped into you in a bar?
2. Is it absoloutely wrong to rape a newborn baby?
3. Is it absoloutely wrong to go into your next door neighbours house who is an old aged pensioner, and rob her pension, and smash her face flat on the way out?
4. Is it absoloutely wrong to have sex with your best friends wife behind his back?
YOU SAID People have certain notions about life, many natural, many nurtured. To say we get these from God leaves open the gaping hole that my God says this and your God says that. Have absolutely no doubt in your mind but the fanatics who flew those planes into the twin towers completely and utterly believed they were morally right and they would be rewarded by their God. Were they, I don't think so.
I cannot and will not comment on the men that committed that horrendous act. Tell me, were they absoloutely wrong for what they did? Why, because you and the masses say so, or because it is just flat out wrong?
YOU SAID Yes, but ther are common traits in all humans, love of children, need for status among peers, enjoyment of sex...
Love of food is a fairly common trait as well. However this in no ways links to morality. Common traits are not a judgement for what is right and wrong, or are they?
YOU SAID I base my opinions of this world upon knowledge acquired from scientific means, so I would say fact.
Please offer me factual evidence which supports this, or links to where I can find it?
YOU SAID My life is unique, I have only this one.
Anything that is not unique loses some of its value.
The first statement is a belief. I disagree with the second. Remember your judgement of value is entirely subjective.
In Peace, Mr Average
The King said:
I must say, it is a bit rich to ask for scientific data and evidence when you reject exactly that when discussing astrology, or the moon landing, or any number of other crackpot schemes.
What you demonstrate, again and again, is the thinking of someone who accepts an idea because mostly it has emotional appeal, then finds 'evidence' to justify it, while ignoring any certified facts that contradict your opinion. i.e you share the same kind of thought process as a crank.
2. Is it absolutely wrong to rape a newborn baby?
Under 99.999% of circumstances, yes. But again, if it was a choice between raping a neworn baby or watching 1,000 newborn babies being raped, what would you do? The moral thing in that case might be the immoral option.
However I am not an expert on ethics and don't know whether this is the correct way of defeating this argument.
Under 99.999% of circumstances, yes. But again, if it was a choice between raping a neworn baby or watching 1,000 newborn babies being raped, what would you do? The moral thing in that case might be the immoral option.
However I am not an expert on ethics and don't know whether this is the correct way of defeating this argument.
The King said:
You don't get it. It is up to you to PROVE your case. Videos and hearsay DON'T PROVE ANYTHING by themselves. Everyone is perfectly within their rights to assume it is a magic trick, or a con, or something similar, in the absence of the proof. Why? Because (a) so many of these things ARE cons and (b) it is a long-established procedure that the person making the claim is the person who has to provide the proof. And (c) frankly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The King said:
Well, he linked to Nature. There have been many others though.
nickm said:
I do see what you are saying.
However, I am merely asking the a-theists if it always wrong to rape a newborn baby? Not whether it is the better option if a "worse" option is the alternative. When a question on morality is asked, and then other options are added, it can be because the question itself cannot be answered without leading to the conclusion that morality is absoloute.
It gets tricky.
Either; It is absoloutely wrong in your eyes, and therefore you must concede that there is some form of absolute morality. Or, it is not absoloutely wrong, and this goes to show that subjective ethics held by some a-theists actually undermine morality. If it is not absoloutely wrong, *you* could truthfully say to someone, it is *not* absoloutely wrong to rape a newborn. Could you honestly say that? I doubt you could, and I think I understand why.
In Peace, Mr Average.