b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » Message 10158607 (Thread)

# I think he'd happily call himself an atheist.
The issue is that sensible, scientific reasoning will suggest very strongly that there is no god of any type to a very large probability. However, the chance of there being a Christian god is essentially zero. There's just no evidence for one, and no-one has ever produced any.

So we can probably take atheism to mean not believing in the 'established' gods. The issue with agnosticism in this case is that it's hardly any better than actually believing in a god. 'Well based on the evidence given, I'm just not sure.' This is a ridiculous stance because the available evidence is entirely against their being a god. So what's the point of being agnostic unless deep down you think there probably is a god and you don't want to piss him off because he's big, angry and jealous.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:08, archived)
# Well, not really.
Agnosticism is the only acceptable stance, since it isn't possible to disprove god.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:09, archived)
# Are you telling me what to think?
You're as bad as Dawkins/The Pope
(I helped save b3ta! Wasp Box like a nervous random stranger at a glory hole, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:13, archived)
# Yes, but I AM actually right.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:16, archived)
# No,
it's impossible to *prove* got. As I say, there is no evidence for the existence of a god. It's up to people that believe in one to prove that one does exist.
Put it this way - people that believe in unicorns or fairies would be ridiculed. If they wanted money to set up a unicorn protection society, they would be asked to produce proof of one before getting cash. Both of those believes are more likely than a god, but if you go around asking for funding for some kind of religious society, no-one asks you to prove that on exists.

So using that example, we can say that a god doesn't exist until you show us proof. Being unsure about it isn't acceptable even scientifically, because even with science non of the things we absolutely believe in are 100% proven, but the evidence for them is very, very strong.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:18, archived)
# Also, likewise, we can say that god does exist until you show us proof.
It's "The Earth is flat" argument, displayed so lucidly in Men In Black.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:30, archived)
# The point is,
there's no evidence for a god, so why should it be the responsibility of atheists to disprove something that there's no *reasonable* argument for in the first place - it's an argument you can never win.

"Well we've created several new instruments and sent them to every part of the universe to search for God. We've examined inside every particle, but nothing. There is no God."
"But you can't find God with science - you need to have *faith*."
"Oh fuck off."
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:34, archived)
# Ah - I see.
So - "this is my belief mechanism, into which your belief mechanism does not fit."

"My belief mechanism works like this."

"Oh fuck off."

Hmmm. Sounds cult-ish.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:35, archived)
# pffft
i refer my right honorable gentleman to the argument he had some moments ago:
b3ta.com/board/10145721
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:40, archived)
# Hmmm.
I'm not sure which part you're referring to.

That science perceives and claims it's belief mechanism to be superior?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:45, archived)
# the religious belief mechanism is as follows:
i dont understand a particular natural phenomenon so I'm going to ascribe it to an unseen patriarchal superbeing based on what some bloke in a stupid hat told me.

i think i prefer the scientific method.
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:54, archived)
# Vs: I'm going to ascribe it to something some bloke in a white coat told me.
It's the men in black dresses vs. the men in white coats.

Pick your team.

NOT REALLY!

Science asks "How?"

Religion asks "Why?"
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:57, archived)
# Oh bollocks.
Scientists are people too. Of course they also want to know why, when why is a valid question.
Why do religious people think they have a monopoly on philosophy? What about psychology and social sciences? Do they not ask "why"?
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:02, archived)
# the chap in the white coat has evidence to support his claims,
the guy in the black dress does not. The only question religion asks is 'why are you asking questions?'
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:05, archived)
# Exactly wrong.
Religion asks why it all happened in the first place. Which science does not, as it can't answer it.
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:10, archived)
# Its not asking anything.
its one answer was written down in a book hundreds of years ago and goes as follows:
'god clicked his fingers and it happened'
I'm not really very happy with that as an explanation of the universe.
(benito vaselini no not that one, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:21, archived)
# Yes it is. I'm not condoning the answer they've given, but they've asked
"Why did this all come into existence?"

While science asks "How did this come into existence", and has a nice formula for it, it doesn't ask "Why?".
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 12:08, archived)
# This is the problem I have with Russell's Teapot analogy
With technical advances in telescopes, satellites and probes we could probably spot it now, so there would be a god ;)

Unless he is saying a teapot that can never ever ever ever ever ever be proven, in which case there is no point in believing in it at all because most gods you rely on to be there for you in one way or another.
(I helped save b3ta! HappyToast Groat froth, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:39, archived)
# Perhaps it's a flawed argument these days. :)
I prefer the comparison to believe in obviously mythological creature like dragons or santa and so on.
Any adults that believed in them would be laughed at, and if they insisted that they existed then they'd either end up in a mad house or would be asked to bloody well prove it.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:44, archived)
# You believe in your scientific instruments when they give you a reading, though, right?
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:46, archived)
# Not just one instrument,
but if they can be calibrated against something known, and then a large number repeatedly give the same reading then yes.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:52, archived)
# I think I should shut up and stop pissing in your mind ;)
(I helped save b3ta! Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:03, archived)
# I see. So ... if I compare several religions, and they all say "There is a god"
Then would it be reasonable to believe they're right?

Only, it seems a bit pick-and-choosy for me.

"Arm yourself and run."
(I helped save b3ta! Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:08, archived)
# No.
If several religions had empirical proof of a god then it would be reasonable to suppose they're right.

You have to actually prove it though - just saying it doesn't really count, as people have the ability to say things that aren't true. It's called "lying", and the big religious institutes have been known to do that in the past.

That's all that atheists ask really; just prove it. With real proof and not just a 'vague sort-of like feeling that, you know, there's something up there'.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 11:24, archived)
# Well, if my thermometer tells me that it's 28 degrees Centigrade outside,
and it doesn't appear to be broken, I assume it's correct. If three other thermometers tell me that it's actually 25, I question the validity of my thermometer. If the mercury has a big gap, and it tells me that it's 70 degrees outside, I suspect it's gone wrong. It's not the same as blind faith.
(I helped save b3ta! Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:57, archived)
#
I think this supposes that everyone ought to have the mental capacity to judge for themselves based on the evidence - without having any preconceptions, which I think is rare

I've been reading about Russell's Teapot and I'm very confused - and I went to University and can spell
(I helped save b3ta! Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:17, archived)
# It doesn't suppose, but it hopes.
It's more of the case that, if your not indoctrinated with a particular faith by your parents and the state when you're young, but introduced equally to all the faiths and non-faiths, then if you choose a particular faith to follow then fine - it was your own choice and that's good, and you don't have to take a scientific approach to reason out whether you ought to believe it or not.
If you've been brainwashed in a particular faith then it's going to be more of a mental effort to discard that faith - you will need to sit down and think about it more scientifically.
(I helped save b3ta! wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:22, archived)