Is there a god?

[john9blue]

Religion is the #1 cause of cognitive dissonance

and the burden of proof is on us to prove otherwise

[PLAYER57832]

To conlude ;

1) There is no evidence of a ' God ' being anything other than wishful thinking.

Correction. There is no evidence that you wish to accept.
There is ALSO no proof that there is no God.

2) Player has huge conflict because she likes to think she has a logical mind so has to resort to inner denial of uncomfortable facts , this has led to statements both bizarre and clearly untrue , shame isn't it

No, a number of you wish to consider that your BELIEFS are superior to those of other people. Fine.. most of us do that, in truth. HOWEVER, when you go from saying "OK, this is my belief, its not yours... so be it" to claiming that your belief is somehow more logical or more reasonable, then it is no different than any scientific question where heavy bias prevents people from breaking out of the standard, assumed modes of thinking.

It is, precisely, the type of thinking that lead to so many dismissing the possibility that bacteria caused ulcers, though in retrospect, there was evidence of that, just evidence folks dismissed because it ran so contrary to what they accepted as true.

Similarly, it led to the continued belief that velliger larvae were actually parasites, not larvae of crabs.

AND to many other errors.

AND.. no, I am not saying I can prove my beliefs. But, I accept that and I accept that you disagree and am not attempting to claim your beliefs are invalid. They are not mine, but I cannot prove them invalid. A number of you here, however, seem to think it perfectly scientific to dismiss other people's beliefs. That is not science, it is bias and garbage science.

[Woodruff]

No, Woodruff claimed that atheism was a logical position, while belief in God was not.

I made no such claim at all. Quote me.

Woodruff, others have repeatedly claimed that Atheism is the most likley choice.

Do you believe that it is more likely that unicorns exist or do not exist? Support your answer.

[Woodruff]

This is a load of self-serving horseshit. I don't have a problem with people of faith. In fact, I greatly respect a good number of people of faith. But the idea that believing in God is somehow logical is farcical nonsense. [ It requires faith, not logic.

Yes, but no more than atheism, which was the comparison.

Uh...what? "No more than atheism"? What are you talking about? I was stating that your attempt to compare atheism to religion is where the load of self-serving horseshit entered. So are you unable to follow the thread?

{sigh} someone disagrees, so you resort to insults? Thought you were above that.

What insult? It seriously doesn't look like you're following the thread.

Atheism IS religion, is very much based on belief.

Honestly, that just doesn't even make basic sense unless you're looking at it from the perspective that ANYTHING can be a religion. If you take that view (which I would agree with), then sure...just like money can become someone's religion, so can atheism. But otherwise, you're just barking up the wrong tree.

There is no more evidence to show lack of God than God

Uh...I would suggest that the lack of evidence for God IS the evidence for the lack of a God.

[comic boy]

We heard it all before Player and dismissed it as schoolground banter, you cant prove it either nah nah nah nah nah !
By dismissing probability you have shown the weakness of your claim , by dismissing the case for logical reasoning you have lost the plot , by being unable to reconcile your conflict you have turned to denial , I hope one day you will recognise this and find comfort in reality.

[PLAYER57832]

No, Woodruff claimed that atheism was a logical position, while belief in God was not.

I made no such claim at all. Quote me.

Here you go:

Religious faith depends , amongst other things , on social, physchological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities,evidence or logic.

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

There are absolutely probabilities, evidence and logic that poses atheism as the most reasonable.

Woodruff, others have repeatedly claimed that Atheism is the most likley choice.

Do you believe that it is more likely that unicorns exist or do not exist? Support your answer.

The biggest difference is that unicorns are limited to Earth and, albiet supposed to have magical attributes, are none-the-less supposed to have a real Earthly physical presence. They are part of a defined universe. Mapping/scanning technologies are such that its unlikely their presence would have been missed if they existed. That said, I cannot absolutely 100% eliminate any possibility.

When it comes to God, you cannot even lay out the parameters. We know pieces, and that is it. Claiming anything else (outside of belief) is just arrogance or very bad science/logic. Also, as I and others of faith have stated, its not that evidence is absent, its that the evidence that exists is not evidence easy to relay to another person, never mind on the internet. That does place it outside the realm of a scientific proof, but not outside the realm of belief and evidence worthy of belief/investigation (even in a scientific way).

You make the most fundamental and critically harmful error in science and logic here. You claim that the unknown can be defined. It cannot. It is investigating those mysteries that drives science forward. AND, despite the many claims to the contrary, science investigation is not like plugging things into a computer. This is why it is humand, not computers who do science (though computers help a lot in processing data). Ony humans are able to have belief, to have creativity in thought and to envision possiblities even where there is just a small amount of evidence. Many times those investigations prove fruitless, but occasionally they pay off. Denying that, dismissing any one question.. whether its God or some other question becuase you find it unpalatable or improbable is denying science at its root.

[pmchugh]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct. Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

[Symmetry]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct. Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

That last sentence could equally apply to science. It's worth, and I say this an atheist, listening to what religious folks actually say and accepting that there are areas where it comes down to faith.

[everywhere116]

Player's argument reminds me of something I read literally from my argumentation textbook. It is the "Appeal to ignorance". It is, and I quote, "...ask[ing] the audience to accept a claim solely because no proof exists to deny it's validity."

[everywhere116]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct. Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

That last sentence could equally apply to science. It's worth, and I say this an atheist, listening to what religious folks actually say and accepting that there are areas where it comes down to faith.

No scientist says they hold the absolute truth. That's contradictory to science.

[Symmetry]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct. Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

That last sentence could equally apply to science. It's worth, and I say this an atheist, listening to what religious folks actually say and accepting that there are areas where it comes down to faith.

No scientist says they hold the absolute truth. That's contradictory to science.

But having access to it via scientific method is at the heart of science. Contrariwise, most religious folk accept doubt as part of their religious belief.

[pmchugh]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct. Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

That last sentence could equally apply to science. It's worth, and I say this an atheist, listening to what religious folks actually say and accepting that there are areas where it comes down to faith.

No scientist says they hold the absolute truth. That's contradictory to science.

But having access to it via scientific method is at the heart of science. Contrariwise, most religious folk accept doubt as part of their religious belief.

Lol fail. Science makes no claim to absolute truth ever. Even the most basic facts are defined within a frame of reference. Everything in science is questioned, religion actively prevents some things being questioned. They are in fact polar opposites.

[Symmetry]

Player there is a fundamental difference between laying parameters on whether God exists and on whether Christianity is correct. Although I would still argue that God is not a likely possibility, Christianity is far less likely.

Has the Church claimed things to be true that have been proven wrong? Have they claimed things to be absolute morals which we now find repulsive? Can the Church use religion to control the masses?

The great irony of Christianity is it claims to have access to absolute truths, yet it has to constantly adapt to stay in touch with reality.

That last sentence could equally apply to science. It's worth, and I say this an atheist, listening to what religious folks actually say and accepting that there are areas where it comes down to faith.

No scientist says they hold the absolute truth. That's contradictory to science.

But having access to it via scientific method is at the heart of science. Contrariwise, most religious folk accept doubt as part of their religious belief.

Lol fail. Science makes no claim to absolute truth ever. Even the most basic facts are defined within a frame of reference. Everything in science is questioned, religion actively prevents some things being questioned. They are in fact polar opposites.

I really don't see that as being true at all. Let's take for example mathematics. Godel showed that within any system of arithmetic, there have to be certain articles taken on faith as being true for the system to rest on.

Link

[pmchugh]

Lol fail. Science makes no claim to absolute truth ever. Even the most basic facts are defined within a frame of reference. Everything in science is questioned, religion actively prevents some things being questioned. They are in fact polar opposites.

I really don't see that as being true at all. Let's take for example mathematics. Godel showed that within any system of arithmetic, there have to be certain articles taken on faith as being true for the system to rest on.

Link

That proves my point and is in fact what I was saying. I even considered bringing up mathematical axioms in my post.

Mathematics (the most fundamental science) admits it cannot have absolute truths and therefore creates a frame of reference to define things in.

You proved yourself almost as adept at arguing with yourself as player.

[john9blue]

Lol fail. Science makes no claim to absolute truth ever. Even the most basic facts are defined within a frame of reference. Everything in science is questioned, religion actively prevents some things being questioned. They are in fact polar opposites.

the ironic flipside of this is that religious people often cite the fact that their faith in god is a belief (which cuts short any attempts at disproving it), whereas scientists don't realize that their beliefs are just beliefs and not facts (until their "facts" are disproved).

stupidity is everywhere regardless of your worldview or beliefs.

[Frigidus]

Lol fail. Science makes no claim to absolute truth ever. Even the most basic facts are defined within a frame of reference. Everything in science is questioned, religion actively prevents some things being questioned. They are in fact polar opposites.

the ironic backside of this is that religious people often cite the fact that their faith in god is a belief (which cuts short any attempts at disproving it), whereas scientists don't realize that their beliefs are just beliefs and not facts (until their "facts" are disproved).

stupidity is everywhere regardless of your worldview or beliefs.

A distinction should be made between beliefs and theories, though. Beliefs can be completely unfounded, whereas theories rely heavily on evidence. While an individual scientist might cling to certain biases, the scientific community as a whole is interested in correctly analyzing the universe's workings. The most celebrated scientists are ones that challenged the accepted worldview.

[john9blue]

A distinction should be made between beliefs and theories, though. Beliefs can be completely unfounded, whereas theories rely heavily on evidence. While an individual scientist might cling to certain biases, the scientific community as a whole is interested in correctly analyzing the universe's workings. The most celebrated scientists are ones that challenged the accepted worldview.

i disagree; theories are beliefs because they have not been proven to any reasonable degree. they are reasonable beliefs, but beliefs nonetheless.

[Frigidus]

A distinction should be made between beliefs and theories, though. Beliefs can be completely unfounded, whereas theories rely heavily on evidence. While an individual scientist might cling to certain biases, the scientific community as a whole is interested in correctly analyzing the universe's workings. The most celebrated scientists are ones that challenged the accepted worldview.

i disagree; theories are beliefs because they have not been proven to any reasonable degree. they are reasonable beliefs, but beliefs nonetheless.

Nothing can be proven, though. For all any of us know, our senses are not correctly registering reality. This doesn't mean that every imaginable world view is equally valid due to each one having a slim possibility of being correct.

[Symmetry]

Lol fail. Science makes no claim to absolute truth ever. Even the most basic facts are defined within a frame of reference. Everything in science is questioned, religion actively prevents some things being questioned. They are in fact polar opposites.

I really don't see that as being true at all. Let's take for example mathematics. Godel showed that within any system of arithmetic, there have to be certain articles taken on faith as being true for the system to rest on.

Link

That proves my point and is in fact what I was saying. I even considered bringing up mathematical axioms in my post.

Mathematics (the most fundamental science) admits it cannot have absolute truths and therefore creates a frame of reference to define things in.

You proved yourself almost as adept at arguing with yourself as player.

Ah, I sort of wish I was back in the stages of atheism that you find yourself in. Everything seems so certain. You can pick up a book of logic based on Cicero's rhetoric and be appalled that others don't see your argument for all its worth. After all, how could they not? You pointed out the problem that thousands of years worth of theology couldn't. It's here now! The argument that destroys religion.

But still they believe. We will ignore them- that is for the best.

Or anyway, perhaps, and I'm just saying this as a suggestion, take a look at some theologians, have a look at some books about faith and doubt. Augustine is a classic. but I've really enjoyed a few books about the Desert Fathers recently- The Solace of Fierce Landscapes is great.

[army of nobunaga]

weak sauce

[john9blue]

i disagree; theories are beliefs because they have not been proven to any reasonable degree. they are reasonable beliefs, but beliefs nonetheless.

Nothing can be proven, though. For all any of us know, our senses are not correctly registering reality. This doesn't mean that every imaginable world view is equally valid due to each one having a slim possibility of being correct.

that's why i said "to any reasonable degree"

[pmchugh]

A distinction should be made between beliefs and theories, though. Beliefs can be completely unfounded, whereas theories rely heavily on evidence. While an individual scientist might cling to certain biases, the scientific community as a whole is interested in correctly analyzing the universe's workings. The most celebrated scientists are ones that challenged the accepted worldview.

i disagree; theories are beliefs because they have not been proven to any reasonable degree. they are reasonable beliefs, but beliefs nonetheless.

Theory isn't a great word because of the double meaning, but I think frig means "a verified hypothesis". Which means it must rely on evidence and it has been proven to a reasonable degree. Scientific theory and fact are almost synonymous in this context. Even between unverified hypothesis and beliefs there is a difference and that difference is reasoning.

I would call atheism an unverifiable hypothesis and I would call Christianity a fairy tale belief.

That proves my point and is in fact what I was saying. I even considered bringing up mathematical axioms in my post.

Mathematics (the most fundamental science) admits it cannot have absolute truths and therefore creates a frame of reference to define things in.

You proved yourself almost as adept at arguing with yourself as player.

Ah, I sort of wish I was back in the stages of atheism that you find yourself in. Everything seems so certain. You can pick up a book of logic based on Cicero's rhetoric and be appalled that others don't see your argument for all its worth. After all, how could they not? You pointed out the problem that thousands of years worth of theology couldn't. It's here now! The argument that destroys religion.

But still they believe. We will ignore them- that is for the best.

Or anyway, perhaps, and I'm just saying this as a suggestion, take a look at some theologians, have a look at some books about faith and doubt. Augustine is a classic. but I've really enjoyed a few books about the Desert Fathers recently- The Solace of Fierce Landscapes is great.

Well done, you nicely dodged my entire post because it proves you wrong

Also don't patronise me, your "sympathetic atheist" views aren't any more valid than my slightly stronger ones. Every post of yours in this thread (and others) is pro-religion, if I didn't know any better I would say you were scared of offending our precious wittle chwistians.

[john9blue]

Theory isn't a great word because of the double meaning, but I think frig means "a verified hypothesis". Which means it must rely on evidence and it has been proven to a reasonable degree. Scientific theory and fact are almost synonymous in this context. Even between unverified hypothesis and beliefs there is a difference and that difference is reasoning.

I would call atheism an unverifiable hypothesis and I would call Christianity a fairy tale belief.


Well done, you nicely dodged my entire post because it proves you wrong

Also don't patronise me, your "sympathetic atheist" views aren't any more valid than my slightly stronger ones. Every post of yours in this thread (and others) is pro-religion, if I didn't know any better I would say you were scared of offending our precious wittle chwistians.

wow.

symmetry is right: you're in an earlier stage of atheism... the stage before you realize the limitations of your own knowledge... the stage that i might have been in as a grade schooler in religious education, had i not been intelligent enough to realize that everything in life is questionable and uncertain and that agnosticism is the only reasonable choice.

[Symmetry]

A distinction should be made between beliefs and theories, though. Beliefs can be completely unfounded, whereas theories rely heavily on evidence. While an individual scientist might cling to certain biases, the scientific community as a whole is interested in correctly analyzing the universe's workings. The most celebrated scientists are ones that challenged the accepted worldview.

i disagree; theories are beliefs because they have not been proven to any reasonable degree. they are reasonable beliefs, but beliefs nonetheless.

Theory isn't a great word because of the double meaning, but I think frig means "a verified hypothesis". Which means it must rely on evidence and it has been proven to a reasonable degree. Scientific theory and fact are almost synonymous in this context. Even between unverified hypothesis and beliefs there is a difference and that difference is reasoning.

I would call atheism an unverifiable hypothesis and I would call Christianity a fairy tale belief.

That proves my point and is in fact what I was saying. I even considered bringing up mathematical axioms in my post.

Mathematics (the most fundamental science) admits it cannot have absolute truths and therefore creates a frame of reference to define things in.

You proved yourself almost as adept at arguing with yourself as player.

Ah, I sort of wish I was back in the stages of atheism that you find yourself in. Everything seems so certain. You can pick up a book of logic based on Cicero's rhetoric and be appalled that others don't see your argument for all its worth. After all, how could they not? You pointed out the problem that thousands of years worth of theology couldn't. It's here now! The argument that destroys religion.

But still they believe. We will ignore them- that is for the best.

Or anyway, perhaps, and I'm just saying this as a suggestion, take a look at some theologians, have a look at some books about faith and doubt. Augustine is a classic. but I've really enjoyed a few books about the Desert Fathers recently- The Solace of Fierce Landscapes is great.

Well done, you nicely dodged my entire post because it proves you wrong

Also don't patronise me, your "sympathetic atheist" views aren't any more valid than my slightly stronger ones. Every post of yours in this thread (and others) is pro-religion, if I didn't know any better I would say you were scared of offending our precious wittle chwistians.

An odd post. I've offended Christians pretty often, if that qualifies as some kind of qualification for me to be right on your part- I'm not sure why it should, but that's up to you. I've apparently offended you somehow, just by suggesting you read some stuff by Christians.

[thegreekdog]

He's certainly an angry young man. I'm not sure what he has to be angry about. He's free to live the life he wants without being fetterred by any religious dogma.