The Atheist Thread

Splashy wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

Surely it's equally irrational to be 100% certain that there is no god as well then?

No because scientist's etc put forawrd evidence to support our non-belief.

What has religion got, An ancient book?

Science has not put forward any evidence to disprove god. It's put forward evidence to make a god unlikely but there is nothing out there that 100% proves there is no god.

Zzonked wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Which is false. There is plenty of reasoning and thinking behind religion. Even if we were to assume that all religions were created by man, a lot of reasoning and thinking went into it.

I'm calling religious belief irrational because there is no factual reasoning that suggest that god exists. Do you deny that any argument comes down to faith then?

There are several theories out there as to how the universe was created the way it was. Some people believe that God was responsible. Others might think we are one in an infinite numbers of universes. Others have different theories. I find holes in other all the theories for the creation of the universe (that I have heard of so far) and so the God theory makes the most sense to me.

The belief in a God requires as much faith as the belief in the multiverse theory for example. You can't prove or disprove the multiverse theory, just as you can't prove or disprove God. Yet there seems to be a double standard. People who believe in a God are treated like crazy people, while people who hold the multiverse theory aren't.

Zzonked wrote:I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that they had terrible information thousands of years ago and that's what the bible is based on? Doesn't that just give you even less reason behind taking it as fact?

The Bible's lessons are timeless, hence why millions still believe in its truth to this day.

ahlycotc wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

I'm calling religious belief irrational because there is no factual reasoning that suggest that god exists. Do you deny that any argument comes down to faith then?

There are several theories out there as to how the universe was created the way it was. Some people believe that God was responsible. Others might think we are one in an infinite numbers of universes. Others have different theories. I find holes in other all the theories for the creation of the universe (that I have heard of so far) and so the God theory makes the most sense to me.

The belief in a God requires as much faith as the belief in the multiverse theory for example. You can't prove or disprove the multiverse theory, just as you can't prove or disprove God. Yet there seems to be a double standard. People who believe in a God are treated like crazy people, while people who hold the multiverse theory aren't.

But that's when you have to take into account the difference between theism and deism. You can't disprove deism, but you can find holes in theistic theories.

MickStupp wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

Plenty of people are certain there is no god. You don't see people questioning their intelligence though.

Like who? I would certainly challenge their beliefs, since they cannot prove definitively that there is no god. But the vast majority of atheists have a degree of agnosticism.

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

Sarmz wrote:

MickStupp wrote:
Like who? I would certainly challenge their beliefs, since they cannot prove definitively that there is no god. But the vast majority of atheists have a degree of agnosticism.

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

No, not Dan.

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:

Zzonked wrote:I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that they had terrible information thousands of years ago and that's what the bible is based on? Doesn't that just give you even less reason behind taking it as fact?

The Bible's lessons are timeless, hence why millions still believe in its truth to this day.

Millions of people believe in the bible because they were indoctrinated and never learned any different. If you could go back in time and replace the bible with something else, give it the same backing and force it upon other cultures, you would still have millions of people believing in it thousands of years later.

Sarmz wrote:

MickStupp wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

Plenty of people are certain there is no god. You don't see people questioning their intelligence though.

Like who? I would certainly challenge their beliefs, since they cannot prove definitively that there is no god. But the vast majority of atheists have a degree of agnosticism.

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

I seriously doubt that RR falls into that category.

Sarmz wrote:

MickStupp wrote:
Like who? I would certainly challenge their beliefs, since they cannot prove definitively that there is no god. But the vast majority of atheists have a degree of agnosticism.

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

You say we can't prove God doesn't exist but can you prove he does?

Splashy wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

You say we can't prove God doesn't exist but can you prove he does?

We never said we could prove that.

Sarmz wrote:

MickStupp wrote:
Like who? I would certainly challenge their beliefs, since they cannot prove definitively that there is no god. But the vast majority of atheists have a degree of agnosticism.

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

I'm not sure about RR falling into that category. He just holds a more aggressive stance than most.

Sarmz wrote:

Splashy wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

Surely it's equally irrational to be 100% certain that there is no god as well then?

No because scientist's etc put forawrd evidence to support our non-belief.

What has religion got, An ancient book?

Science has not put forward any evidence to disprove god. It's put forward evidence to make a god unlikely but there is nothing out there that 100% proves there is no god.

I agree with the principle. However it's not a good reason to suggest faith is a good idea.

Zzonked wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

Science has not put forward any evidence to disprove god. It's put forward evidence to make a god unlikely but there is nothing out there that 100% proves there is no god.

I agree with the principle. However it's not a good reason to suggest faith is a good idea.

Why not?

Splashy wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

You say we can't prove God doesn't exist but can you prove he does?

No, but then I'm not the one going around question peoples intelligence based on their beliefs am I?

Jordi wrote:

Fucks sake I was going to use that

MickStupp wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

There are several theories out there as to how the universe was created the way it was. Some people believe that God was responsible. Others might think we are one in an infinite numbers of universes. Others have different theories. I find holes in other all the theories for the creation of the universe (that I have heard of so far) and so the God theory makes the most sense to me.

The belief in a God requires as much faith as the belief in the multiverse theory for example. You can't prove or disprove the multiverse theory, just as you can't prove or disprove God. Yet there seems to be a double standard. People who believe in a God are treated like crazy people, while people who hold the multiverse theory aren't.

But that's when you have to take into account the difference between theism and deism. You can't disprove deism, but you can find holes in theistic theories.

Fair enough. Maybe there is a God out there but all the current religions are just false. Or maybe there is only one true religion out there.

Splashy wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

From what I've seen Dan, Splashy and RR would fall into that category.

You say we can't prove God doesn't exist but can you prove he does?

No and nobody claims to have 100% proof of God's existence.

SBSP wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

Science has not put forward any evidence to disprove god. It's put forward evidence to make a god unlikely but there is nothing out there that 100% proves there is no god.

I agree with the principle. However it's not a good reason to suggest faith is a good idea.

Why not?

Because there's no evidence to disprove a whole multitude of things. Just because it's not definitely untrue doesn't mean it's true. Flying spaghetti monster territory here.

Everything in this world is based on belief. I have never seen my kidneys, but does that mean I am lacking in that department?

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Everything in this world is based on belief. I have never seen my kidneys, but does that mean I am lacking in that department?

No, because there is scientific proof that they exist.

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Everything in this world is based on belief. I have never seen my kidneys, but does that mean I am lacking in that department?

I could show you them if you give me your address.

Sarmz wrote:

Splashy wrote:
You say we can't prove God doesn't exist but can you prove he does?

No, but then I'm not the one going around question peoples intelligence based on their beliefs am I?

Well why are you in the Athiest thread then?

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Everything in this world is based on belief. I have never seen my kidneys, but does that mean I am lacking in that department?

Not exactly the best example to use there.

Jordi wrote:

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Everything in this world is based on belief. I have never seen my kidneys, but does that mean I am lacking in that department?

No, because there is scientific proof that they exist.

But I have not yet seen my livers? And any pictures from scans they run could easily be photoshopped

ahlycotc wrote:

MickStupp wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

There are several theories out there as to how the universe was created the way it was. Some people believe that God was responsible. Others might think we are one in an infinite numbers of universes. Others have different theories. I find holes in other all the theories for the creation of the universe (that I have heard of so far) and so the God theory makes the most sense to me.

The belief in a God requires as much faith as the belief in the multiverse theory for example. You can't prove or disprove the multiverse theory, just as you can't prove or disprove God. Yet there seems to be a double standard. People who believe in a God are treated like crazy people, while people who hold the multiverse theory aren't.

But that's when you have to take into account the difference between theism and deism. You can't disprove deism, but you can find holes in theistic theories.

Fair enough. Maybe there is a God out there but all the current religions are just false. Or maybe there is only one true religion out there.

Yeah that's the logical stance to take, if you understand that, do you just believe because of Pascals Wager?

If this thread has no point, neither does the Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool threads.

Also those internet memes are not there to bash religion. They are there to discuss points of why we don't believe in god.

Also there is lots of discussion to be had over religion. To begin, In Science, you have to observe, theorize, test, then modify hypothesis until you get the result. The problem with History is that you cannot test a hypothesis, you cannot simply make a model earth and test things, but there is one thing you can use for testing - our planet and all it's history and people. Thus makes way for why I find religion a very interesting subject. It is so because it is interesting to study how the environment shaped peoples beliefs in a time before the scientific method and modern science, and in turn, how those same beliefs influenced peoples decision making when the very same environment changed over time. Religion is also much like language and the human race, always evolving.

Jordi wrote:

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:Everything in this world is based on belief. I have never seen my kidneys, but does that mean I am lacking in that department?

No, because there is scientific proof that they exist.

I have never seen said scientists run these tests.

Zzonked wrote:

SBSP wrote:Why not?

Because there's no evidence to disprove a whole multitude of things. Just because it's not definitely untrue doesn't mean it's true. Flying spaghetti monster territory here.

Yet people who believe in a god are treated differently?

I often compare religious people to people who believe in alien life. We can't currently prove or disprove alien intelligent life.

InGlennyWeTrust wrote:

Jordi wrote:No, because there is scientific proof that they exist.

But I have not yet seen my livers? And any pictures from scans they run could easily be photoshopped

Now you're just being even more retarded.

Pascal's Wager is grossly misinterpreted.