Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of, Science and Religion Now!

I am a huge critic of religeon, but see the way you attack religeon, to do you no good whatsoever. If you try go out there and prove to the world that religeon is false, you are attacking every individual that believes in religeon. That is not only unwise , it is hurtful.

If you do not believe in religeon, DONT. Keep it to yourself. If you have an individual like newguy, trying to force it down your throat, give him your anger, but always allow people to have free choice. If we do not, we have not progressed as human beings, and you will be no better than those religeous fanatics.

Your founding fathers (and my american history sucks) I believe had this in mind. Freedom of choice and expression. It is sad, that they chose to side with christians god, and isoltaed so many who did not believe in christians god, but that was the time that they existed. We have to forgive them for this.

Live by example. Be a good , sound and sane person. Have mercy, understanding, compassion and every other trait that we assume makes a civilised society. When people see this, and they know you do not believe in god, you will have done more for your cause, than standing on a soap box screaming your belief.

Well, I think there are components of religion that are harmful to society, so I'm going to speak up about it.

As well, while it's technically appropriate to be agnostic on gods, I think that there's more than enough evidence to disprove Abrahamic conceptions of gods

But you say that God does not exist and provide no evidence.

You and the Theists both make absolute assertions with no evidence.
And you should know better because you have reason on your side.
But you can't stand the conclusion that we can't know any more than they can stand that answer.

You counter their lack of evidence with your own lack of evidence.
And resort to name calling the same way they do.

Ditto for those who believe in a religion. Don't tell me... show me.

A quote from Wikipedia pretty much sums my philosophy of faith:

What's to argue about?

Ditto for those that beleive they know the answer. Don't tell me show me.

BTW Physfan did you even notice that neither I nor Robdegraves have said that God exists?

All I"m saying is that you have proven nothing. Well other than the Theists have also proven nothing.

Breaking this down:

How many are there?

As in supernatural?

In an 'infinite amount of time', 'eventually' could mean a few dectillion years. Do we have data to support this assertion

You mean deity toying with suicide?

And there is a history of this?

The only Godly data/history that i know of is that old gods never die, they turn into faith. And that takes ~ a couple thousand years.

Like I said, mutual annihilation

This post has been edited by soundhertz on Jun 8 2010, 04:27 PM

Yes, I see it as a flaw in the analogy. But not a flaw in favour of belief because as ridiculous as it might be to consider a planet orbiting teapot, at least they are all things known to exist or occur. What do we know about any god's existence?

As I've said before, of course I leave reasonable room open for all untestable, unfalsifiable, extraordinary or absolute claims, ideas etc that have poor or no evidence to support them. And I think the reasonable response to such claims is prove it.

Do you anticipate him providing this evidence any time soon? IMHO A universe altering amount of evidence is required.

Why is knowledge of God a prerequisite for God to exist?
You are making a similar mistake as the Theists do.
I ask for evidence of God and they give evidence of faith in God.
And you are talking about faith in God as well. But you don't have evidence and they think they do. But you are both talking about evidence of faith in God.


And furthermore what does reasonable have to do with it?
I don't consider relativity to reasonable but it exists.

It depends on what a god actually is. Which god?, what god? What is a god? The Abrahamic god for instance apparently communicates with some individuals, some times. So it is they not I who is claiming knowledge. The best I can do is listen to the claim and asses whether I think it's valid.

Science could explain much of the workings of a donkey. How do we trace the evolutionary ancestry of a unicorn? Do unicorns even evolve? Are there any useful questions or answers for biologists, archaeologists etc to glean from such endeavor? IMHO it's one for the psychologists but hey I'm skeptical, can't help it.

If the best someone can offer as evidence is their faith then that's kinda the end of any debate other than to question the nature of that faith perhaps.

Ironically, I rarely encounter those whom I would consider actually have faith. They often believe they have some kind of real evidence and are not slow to convince others that this evidence is valid, rational and science based.

If someone has faith that a particular god/gods exist, I say good luck to them. If 'they' as organised religions have done throughout history decide that because the personality of their perceived god, I and other skeptics have to do x,y or z especially in regards to science education, then I think it's irresponsible not to demand sound evidence.

If such a thing as a god exists and that god is omnipotent or at least much more powerful than our skepticism, that being would have the ability to prove its existence to us. By the fact that we can be sceptically, I think demonstrates that this 'god' has decided not to prove its existence to us or perhaps does not exist.

I do not claim to know that a god does not exist, I do say that there is no evidence that convinces me that one does or can. None of this has any bearing on whether such a being exists or not. You could argue that this is more an agnostic position. But with no convincing evidence of any supernatural tinkering I live my life as if no such beings exist, which makes me an atheist, I guess.

Gorrillas existed before anyone had any knowledge of them.

Why do you keep talking about what others believe and give some evidence of what you believe.
I think Rob and I both consider it a given that the Theists have not proven anything.
So please stop trying to make that point. You have won that point.
If you want to go further you will have to offer some evidence.
They have given you no reason to believe that there is a God but you don't stop there you say that there is no God.
But you can't back that up, you can only go as far as "it's up to them to prove that there is but they havn't."
That simply does not prove that there is no God, only that we have no reason to believe that there is.



I believe that there is no evidence one way or the other.
And so far no one has offered any.

I do now apologise, take your point and will now make an effort to ensure that it is as widely disseminated as possible.

At any time any of my friends tell their children that Father Christmas/Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Fairy-at-the-Bottom-of-the-Garden or any other fairy, hobgoblin or any other supernatural or invisible being does not exist, I will go to great pains to make the point emphatically that they cannot prove the non-existence of any of these entities and to do so is to pervert the education and understanding of their children.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
hahahah. You, the pants man and the grave robber are such incredulous f@cks that it defies understanding. No matter how absurd a scenario, you cling to the ridiculous under the illusion of reason. Do all three of you have goatee beards; the sign of the true pretentious twat.

Goodbye f...wits, you deserve each other,

Physfan

Invisible pink unicorns exist.

I saw one.




Oh...

Writing this, I missed Physfan's little hissy fit.

You don't need to keep proving that you are irrational Physfan. We understood that a while back.


Calm down and take a pill.... hopefully your faith will sooth you.

This post has been edited by RobDegraves on Jun 9 2010, 03:16 AM

If a game is a tie game, do you understand the difference between saying the other team didn't win and we won?

You keep going on and on about how the other team hasn't scored but your team hasn't scored either. That's a tie. Ok so it's their game and you didn't agree to play until you gave your opinion then you were in the game.

You have managed a tie but not a win.
They haven't won and you havn't lost.

And you do sound like one of them. That just makes your position weaker.

And you goofed in your post. You should be asking the other person to prove the existence of Santa Claus et al. not asking them to prove the non-existance.

Did I add that you are humourless f@cks as well. No? Sorry, I forgot.
There are two things; reason and logic. Pure logic would argue that you are quite correct in saying I cannot prove there is no god or gods. The application of reason would see that the argument is pointless because there is no foundation for the claim for their existence.
But please continue on your merry way. Adolf would be so proud.

I have speakers to build and audio projects to pursue that will add enjoyment to my life. Cluttering it up with pedants pursuing logical absurdities is as attractive as dysentery.