b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » Message 10158658 (Thread)

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.'

(

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.

(

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?

(

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?"

(

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"?

(

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.

(

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?".

(

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.

(

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.

(

wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:44, archived)

You believe in your scientific instruments when they give you a reading, though, right?

(

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.

(

wheelybird mreee!, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:52, archived)

I think I should shut up and stop pissing in your mind ;)

(

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."

(

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'.

(

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.

(

Crystal Magnet Like a diamond geezer, but better, Thu 19 Aug 2010, 10:57, archived)