You can only know something if it is true, else it is only a belief.
She didn't know that god exists, anymore than you know that he/she/it doesn't, as such a thing is essentially unknowable. Hence, belief in god requires faith, which is sort of the point.

Long story short, you're all idiots.

This is also why agnosticism is the more rational position for those of no faith, as militant, there-is-no-god, aetheism is as irrational as those it seeks to criticise. There's a massive debate to be had here but, eh, idiots, all of you.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 7 Mar 2011, 21:43, 5 replies)

Are you similarly ambivalent about unicorns?

They may just be really good at hiding.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Mon 7 Mar 2011, 21:46, closed)

...or
indeed Russell's Teapot.
(dchurch bah, Mon 7 Mar 2011, 21:51, closed)

Russell's Teapot
is the perfect illustration. To claim knowledge of it's existence is nonsense.

Unicorns are a man made construct, intended to explain the then unexplainable (narwhal horns, probably), at least to the best of my knowledge. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim that I know the nature of every creature on this planet.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 16:59, closed)

Although
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Is better than the teapot in my eyes.
(dchurch bah, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 17:51, closed)

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

--from the man himself via Wikipedia.
(dchurch bah, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 17:57, closed)

I still think that I'm in general agreement with Russell,
as I'm all for doubt, and none for dogma.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Wed 9 Mar 2011, 10:10, closed)

What the fuck are you saying about unicorns?
I'll have you for religious intolerance you heathen bastard.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 7 Mar 2011, 22:06, closed)

Ok well I have a t Rex who lives in my garden, he's invisible, makes no noise and leaves no impact in the world around him, but I say he's real. This cannot be dissproved so would it be rational to accept the possibility, or is it more rational to stop me looking after kids and to keep me away from pointy objects as I'm clearly a mental?

Im not a "militant atheist" who would refuse to believe in god even if there was evidence, but it doesn't make me stupid to not believe in something there isn't a scrap of evidence for.
(Mong goose, Mon 7 Mar 2011, 22:11, closed)

God isn't real
same as love isn't real, neither is truth or conscience real. That's kind of how faith works - it's the logic of the emotional world, the opposite of ego essentially.

Trouble with religion is that thick (non or psuedo-spiritual) people take it literally and tag a whole lot of stuff onto a basic premis of the idea that there is a right thing to do that defies all logic and reasoning.

The OP might want to explain to their muslim friend that the word Islam means surrender. Surrender of self will and acceptance of "god's will", anything else above this is the work of a bunch of mad mullahs much like first centurary christianity was pretty pure until St Paul had his madcap "Spiritual experience" and fucked it all up with his ideas of Jesus being the literal son of god, the virgin birth, original sin and all that other holy roman empire baloney. Add ego to spirtuality and what you get is religion.

It is perfectly possible to believe in and surrender to a power other than your own self will without worshiping a deity. Spirituality and anti-thiest (athiest) are not mutually exclusive, mankind was doing it for hundreds of thousands of years until around 6000 BCE when all this ego driven religious nonsense took hold chiefly as a result of the desertification of north africa and the middle east.

This book is a pretty comprehensive text on the differences between theism and spirituality. Well worth a read, though probably makes more sense to athiests than religious types for obvious reasons.

www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Insanity-Human-History-Dawning/dp/1905047207/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299578308&sr=8-1


HTH
( buffet_the_appetite_slayer ٩(●̮̃•)۶ jacked in to the ICE on, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 9:44, closed)

Ahhh
Love IS real. It's a chemical imbalance in humans 'designed' to make us act out and go after the real goal, which is to procreate.
Hence, once pro-creation has occurred, love is more akin to habit.
(dchurch bah, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 17:52, closed)

All human behaviour is attributable to electrical/chemical impulses in the brain,
but you have to start hanging simple labels on them at some point, or you're going to have trouble functioning in society.

I hear that the human mind is predisposed to perceive the existence of god (or be receptive to the concept of god, depending on how you approach the issue). Chances are, we're predisposed to argue about it, too!
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Wed 9 Mar 2011, 10:16, closed)

"it doesn't make me stupid to not believe in something there isn't a scrap of evidence for"
Quite. But you would be stupid to claim to know the very nature of the universe. There may well be things in this world which are intangible to us (like your t-rex), but I doubt that either you or I are going to change our lifestyles in reaction to that possibility. Likewise, there may well be beings beyond the limits of our universe that spin it around for their own amusement, but that's neither here nor there, to me.

Organised religion and a personal relationship with god, are worth arguing about, the existence of god is not.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 17:07, closed)

Agreed.
Considering our physical existence is limited to three dimensions of space and a one-dimensional path in time, it's unbelievably arrogant and short-sighted for anyone on either side of this debate* to swan around as if they have a theory of everything.

* for "debate" read "bear pit"
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 7 Mar 2011, 22:52, closed)

Er no
I don't know if there is a flotilla of battle fairies, or a giant invisible ethereal space moose, or a talking teapot on the end of a pinhead, or hyper intelligent shade of blue, or granny phantom who lives 5 minutes in the past or any other of an infinite number of absurd, unsupported unfalsifiable assertions that someone could concoct. If I chose to be agnostic on these matters I would be an idiot. I don't see why religions (or which there are many asserting mutually incompatible things) should be treated any different.
(MagicMoose, Mon 7 Mar 2011, 23:56, closed)

I'm willing to bet actual money there's a Petri dish in a lab somewhere
with different species of mould having a huffy, self-righteous and utterly simplistic slanging match about the nature of the universe and how there can or can't be a mould god and how there definitely isn't a third dimension or anything beyond the edge of the dish because they're completely incapable of understanding or experiencing it on any level.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 0:29, closed)

If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out
(c) Tim Minchin
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 9:31, closed)

haha
I have secretly thought that for ages. It would explain a few things.
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 9:48, closed)

I'd take that bet
Give you pretty good odds too.

Onus is on you to find these mould though, and give reasonable proof of their debates.

I'm collecting from you in the meantime.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 13:07, closed)

Which
of course it would have to be.

To prove a negative would be futile. How could the onus of proof be on you to show that the petri dish doesn't exist?
(dchurch bah, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 17:54, closed)

Sounds familiar.......

( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 8 Mar 2011, 18:40, closed)

aetheism is as irrational as those it seeks to criticise

- except that there either is or there isn't a god, in which case it's either 100% rational or 0% rational. What isn't rational is agnositicism as it's the only position guaranteed to be wrong.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Wed 9 Mar 2011, 16:45, closed)