This is the problem I have with Russell's Teapot analogyWith 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.
(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.
(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."
(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'.
(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)