b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 561394 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post No no no....
You see, the existence of an omnipresent all-powerful being and the particular actions attributed to him in scripture....are ruled out by the laws of science.

There is firm empirical evidence to support Dawkin's view - there is no such evidence to support god.
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:41, , Reply)
This is a normal post No there is not.
There is zero empirical evidence to support a deity, but also zero empirical evidence to support Dawkins's belief that there is no deity.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:45, , Reply)
This is a normal post So with zero empirical evidence to support something....
Isn't it more rational to not believe in it rather than state its existence is definite?

*edit* Also - if you're talking about the scripture-defined form of god (which I think the people who write him hate mail probably are), there's LOTS of empirical evidence to support his non-existence (if you partly define his existence by stated actions and causal effect).
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post No.
Absolutely not.

Of course, you are looking at this from our perspective, not a logical one.

An atheist maintains, with zero empirical evidence to support his position, that there is no Deity. By your argument, it would be more rational not to believe in Atheism than to state that it is definitely true.

I am not arguing with Dawkins's beliefs, merely ranting about his hypocrisy in applying logic to theists which he does not, in turn, apply to atheism.

If you are an empiricalist and not an agnostic then you are shit at empiricalism.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:56, , Reply)
This is a normal post Try looking at it from a different perspective.
If you ask simply 'does God exist?' you can answer in whatever way you want. There's no logical basis to start from and so as you say, the only logical answer is an indecisive one.

The question should instead be 'why do people believe in God?' One answer is that we evolved that way. Consider it's just a biological mechanism within our brains to help us to bond and grow communities with moral uniformity. Or there's the religious view that there is a real, all powerful being we experience through our thoughts and emotions. Either could be true... but which one of those answers sounds more likely? I would certainly say God has been a useful evolutionary trait, so that alone convinces me he's imaginary.

Can't it be both? Can we argue that there's a second, REAL God besides the evolved imaginary God? Sure, but if we can explain the experience of God without God being present, then the real God is clearly doing absolutely nothing. If a God does nothing, why worship him?

tl;dr - I'm an Atheist, argue with me.
 (Alfinch With wisdom comes owls, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 18:46, , Reply)
This is a normal post I think that's possibly a step too far
They're ruled out by the laws of science as we currently know them, but that's not quite the same thing. I lean more towards Enzyme's way of putting it: God is an unnecessary hypothesis to account for the world we see around us.

Of course, there are also logical flaws in the God concept, but that leads to word games and doesn't really help anyone.

My personal favourite argument against creationism is this: given the staggering amount of evidence for evolution, the only possible conclusion is that God was deliberately lying to us (cf Terry Pratchett's 'Strata'). Once you accept that (you can call it 'testing your faith', then it becomes difficult to see why God mightn't just as easily have been lying to us in the Biblical account. Surely once you accept a mendacious God, all bets are off?
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post I like all of that.
The thing is, I have no problem with saying that there are logical issues with religion, but then I don't support any faith nuts, be they Muslim Extremists, Creationalists or Dawkins.

I also find that many, many Dawkins supporters seem to equate any religion with a strict following and utter belief in the bible, as though faith had rules. Not many Christians are creationists.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:00, , Reply)
This is a normal post And our survey says - wah wahhh
www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
 (I helped save b3ta! OldWhit, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 13:15, , Reply)