tangerinedreams Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Even as an atheist I vehemently believe it is man's inadequate and perverse interpretation of religion that has caused centuries of war and unrest, not religion itself. Throw the word 'power' somewhere into there and I don't think you'll be far off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) Hang on, before we all start clubbing each other to death, let's go back on some of the things we said: We know that Occams Razor states: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. Or, if it is used in the religious argument; disbelief is preferred. We also know, and as PhilStarbuck has rightly pointed out, the burden of proof is with the believer: one cannot appeal to ignorance as evidence for something. Or in other words, we have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. statement is fallacious. Bearing these two in mind, the task is actually the other way about: First and foremost, prove that there is a God. I mean, I'd hate to be in the position of trying to prove it whilst applying Occams Razor. I can't prove it... I could explain why I have faith she/he/it/that/whatever exists... But if you are not of a similar mindset you probably won't understand... So where do we go from here ? Edited May 21, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 This is where the burden of proof is a red herring. The very basis of religion is to have faith in something you cannot prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 This is where the burden of proof is a red herring. The very basis of religion is to have faith in something you cannot prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Even as an atheist I vehemently believe it is man's inadequate and perverse interpretation of religion that has caused centuries of war and unrest, not religion itself. I've read that a few times now. I don't understand that statement G, man. You can't blame Man for interpretation alone, which is what that statement claims, there must be something to interpret first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell Love youtube Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 Fascinating. For one thing, it never ceases to amuse me when people who have never believed completely miss the irony of saying, "Prove God's existence and I'll believe in Him." What is ironic about that statement? (except the word "proof" being a bit strong) I'd settle for decent evidence to believe in a deity. Alas, there's none I have encountered. The difference between atheism and religion is actually quite small. It is simply about where to look for the answers to the biggest questions. Why are we here? How did we get here? What else is there? I believe science has those answers, and that maybe one day we will know more of the answers than not. I also believe that science can help provide a moral compass in the form of the questions we inevitably ask ourselves in the pursuit of psychology and philosophy. The difference between Atheism and Theism (not religion - because there are actually "religious atheists") is that Atheists do not believe in a god. Thats it. Personally, whether science provides answers is irrelevant to the god question. If science knew nothing, there is still no reason to suppose a god exists. I am an atheist for the same reason that I don't believe in Astrology, Homeopathy, Big Foot or Pixies. I have yet to be convinced that they exist. I am a skeptic first and foremost. My atheism is a natural result of that skeptism. p.s. Some people don't believe in a god for stupid reasons too, like "I don't believe in a god because there's too much suffering in the world" or "I don't believe in a god because I don't like religion". These are not skeptical atheists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 This is where the burden of proof is a red herring. The very basis of religion is to have faith in something you cannot prove. Religion exists - we are not questioning that, we simply cannot apply any of what we've said to that argument. We're on God now and argumentum ex silentio or the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy applies. It is not a red-herring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I've read that a few times now. I don't understand that statement G, man. You can't blame Man for interpretation, which is what that statement claims, there must be something to interpret first. The texts of the main religions are. as has been mentioned, often contradictory and vague. Inevitably, while the majority of followers of those religions will take a benign and moderate path there will always be those on the fringes willing to claim a handful of lines taken out of context as justification for intolerance and violent pursuit of their cause. At various times in history, such as the crusades and the rapid expansion of Islam those fringes came to the fore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 This is where the burden of proof is a red herring. The very basis of religion is to have faith in something you cannot prove. Which is why faith is ridiculous. You can believe any crazy claim with faith. It is the switching off of critical thinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Religion is no more responsible for war than science is responsible for the H bomb. People kill people, not religions and laws of nature. (Ok, if you fall out of a high window I guess you can blame physics, but you see what I mean... ) I don't agree with that. Whilst I agree that people are responsible for their actions and that there will, religious or not, inevitably be conflicts there's no way to deny that religion has been the reason for countless wars and massacres. Religion is not comparable to the H-Bomb. The bomb is a tool of war, religion is not - it's an catalyst. I would argue those foundations are bollocks and twisted... I ain't avoiding anything... Other than your attempts to twist... Seriously? That's your answer? I'm astonished. So far I've disagreed but respected you. Now I just can't. Without getting into it in detail I can say simply: The Crusades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) Seriously? That's your answer? I'm astonished. So far I've disagreed but respected you. Now I just can't. Without getting into it in detail I can say simply: The Crusades. So you wasn't talking about the foundations or do you have little understanding of history ? You might want to look at the history of Christianity... For arguments sake lets take the start of Christianity at 0 AD... When was the crusades ? EDIT: had to look it up to double check... 1095 to 1291... Foundations ? Edited May 21, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 PhilStarbucksthingy - interesting points. It shows that there is more than one atheist position. I guess I'm a scientific atheist, in that I've looked for the answer to those big questions, through organised religion, unattached 'spiritualism', agnosticism and atheism and have concluded that for me science has the best answers (or potentially so), which discounts the existence of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 The texts of the main religions are. as has been mentioned, often contradictory and vague. Inevitably, while the majority of followers of those religions will take a benign and moderate path there will always be those on the fringes willing to claim a handful of lines taken out of context as justification for intolerance and violent pursuit of their cause. At various times in history, such as the crusades and the rapid expansion of Islam those fringes came to the fore. I think we're all in agreement that we have different religions, and it is interpreted differently throughout the world, however I can't see how this helps us to consider the existence of God. So, can anybody prove God? Remember what we've said with regards to critical thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 So, can anybody prove God? Already said no... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 The only way I see God being proved is that in some hypothetical future where we have answered all the questions of science and know everything there is to know about every aspect of our existence, something completely inexplicable happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 Many a scientific development has come out of such things... Leonardo believed it was possible for man to fly long before it could be proven right. He had good reasons for believing we could fly eventually. He just couldn't finish the job. The concept of synthetic life was only proven yesterday yet the idea has been around for a long time.. The idea was around. That's all. Its still required evidence to believe it to be true. You know, one day we will visit Pluto... Watch this space! These are poor examples. Just because someone has an idea and was spurred on by it does not mean they believed it on faith. There will be thousands of other people who attempted to prove things but failed. You don't get to hear about those. ------ And again you failed to answer the question. Please stop dodging it. Do you automatically believe something to exist until you prove it doesn't? Or do you require evidence for its existence first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 The only way I see God being proved is that in some hypothetical future where we have answered all the questions of science and know everything there is to know about every aspect of our existence, something completely inexplicable happens. Like Latics getting promoted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 He had good reasons for believing we could fly eventually. He just couldn't finish the job. The idea was around. That's all. Its still required evidence to believe it to be true. These are poor examples. Just because someone has an idea and was spurred on by it does not mean they believed it on faith. There will be thousands of other people who attempted to prove things but failed. You don't get to hear about those. ------ And again you failed to answer the question. Please stop dodging it. Do you automatically believe something to exist until you prove it doesn't? Or do you require evidence for its existence first? It seems like every attempt I make at answering questions are either failures, poor examples or dodging... Oh well... I am trying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 [quote name='rummytheowl' date='May 21 2010, 14:18 PM' post='393316' So, can anybody prove God? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 There's also no proof that there isn't one either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 It seems like every attempt I make at answering questions are either failures, poor examples or dodging... Oh well... I am trying... You havent attempted to answer the key question once. Obviously because you are afraid of what the answer might be. I have restated it several times now. There's no way you havent understood it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Already said no... We are now at the point where a religious person has faith in something that they cannot prove exists. I wager we're both very similar - maybe even both Skeptics (with a K) and Atheists , however I just believe in one less deity than you. An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support. --John Buchan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 There's also no proof that there isn't one either. Read back. That's an appeal to ignorance. The statement "We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore he must exist." is a logical fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.