swizzlenuts wrote:

jonny_boy34 wrote:My basic argument for reason is this: I don't believe in god because I've never had any reason to.

+everything else ever

Indeed, there are so many things which we talked about before of course, but when I think about it, that's personally what it comes down to. I have never found a reason to believe in what appears to be a fictional character in order to make myself feel better. My philosophy on life is that there's basically no point, so you have to make your own reason for living and live your life to your fullest potential, instead of just praying and waiting around for a 'better' life that's never going to come. And if I'm wrong and it does come, well that's great because I get two good lives. It's a win win situation really. Unless I go to hell for not believing in god despite the fact I try to be a lovely boy.

If there is a god, surely when Judgement Day comes he'll look more kindly on those who just lived a good life and were naturally inquisitive about the evidence for his existence, rather than those who blindly follow everything in a book. Well you'd like to think so anyway, otherwise he's a pretty shitty vain god.

swizzlenuts wrote:@STD_Cap

It's arrogant to reject a claim that has no evidence? It doesn't matter whether or not it's been around for thousands of years, the default position is disbelief. I find it arrogant for these people to claim they have this knowledge without ever showing it's truth. I'd also say it would matter because you're talking about a being that can control everything about the world, damn you to hell, and do anything it wants. That isn't important or even interesting to you?

I do not know for a fact that there is no such thing as a higher being. To say that we humans are all there is and that we understand and can understand the entire universe is, to me, arrogant. I am not willing to entirely dismiss the idea because the whole point of a higher being (and I am intentionally avoiding the word 'supreme' here) is that it works beyond the physical and the logical. I guess I have an essence of spirituality in me. Or, instead, I'm not willing to completely deny the idea of supernatural - as in beyond the natural laws. I am not saying I do believe in it. I'm just not going to entirely reject it outright. I do not have that level of confidence/arrogance.

As for damning me to Hell and all that horseshit; I explicitly stated that I reject all the God's conceived by the major religions. Also, whether this being control's everything and fucks with me is something I am pretty skeptical of. I do not have anytime for this potential 'thing'. I cannot and do not feel its affect or presence so it doesn't bother me. I'm more concerned with things I can see effect this world.

It's a bit like 9/11 conspiracies and other ideas about what we do not know. There is plenty of crazy, fucked-up shit we know, I'll worry about the other shit (like God) when we have some fucking peace.

swizzlenuts wrote::lol: at the ignorance in your post.

The reason why he gives a 'knob' head response is because the questions they ask him are usually very leading questions are just absurd logically. I've seen Dawkins refute the same points in almost every single lecture. You think the people would figure that out? Not the religious people.

Wheres the ignorance ? And I don't see how logic can be used to base an argument on when talking about something which most like will never be proved or disproved. If there is a "higher power" surely it would defy logic?

Anyways this is why I hate discussions like this. Just go around in circles.

Matthew 15:11: "It is not what goes into a person's mouth that makes him unclean; rather, what comes out of it makes him unclean."

Matthew didn't have much of an imagination.





kk no more silliness kthnx

@STD_Caps

I'd say they aren't being ignorant because they are offering another possible explanation to the commonly accepted notion. I still don't see how claiming that we know how the universe works and can understand the universe is arrogant. We have loads of evidence to suggest this. Also why do you think there is something spiritual/supernatural in our lives? Every experiment involving conscienceness has show that the notion of dualism is more than likely not true. We are just physical beings.

Btw, the 9/11 conspiracy has been pretty much refuted and debunked.

@Destruction
The ignorance is because Dawkins is talking about a specific God (Yaweh) who is making specific claims (Prayer), and we can scientifically test these claims. Every single time we've tested them, they've come out negative. That's what he's talking about, and getting the same argument over and over, it's quite annoying I bet.

Perhaps there is a higher power that doesn't interact with us, but does defy logic; however, we have no evidence that it is there, nor do we have any reason that we would need a higher power. Just to reiterate, Dawkins is not talking about this type of God were we cannot scientifically test. That's why it's ignorant.

pardon my n00bishness, but how can you scientifically test for god?

The Fourth Norseman wrote:pardon my n00bishness, but how can you scientifically test for god?

.

innit!! haha that whole argument is ompletely null and void, the whole point christians make is that you feel him nothinhg to do with weather he actually exists or not...

erm just to say. I follow the flying spaghetti monster

We can test god like this:
Claim: Prayer Works
Mechanism: We pray to this omnipotent God that comes down and interacts in with the real world.

People say, if we pray we can help someone get better in the hospital.

Experiment: Have 300 people in hospitals all with the same disease and same course of action for helping them. For 100 people have no one pray for them, for another 100 people have others pray for them but not let the patients know, and for the last 100 let the patients know they are being prayed for.

The conclusions have always been negative.

here is a study which tested prayer: http://www.worldhealth.net/p/study-fail ... 05-02.html

also there is a book which claims that we can test most Gods to show they don't exist: http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypoth ... 1591024811

hmm...

Yeh but this prayer tests and stuff is based on what is already out there - Islamic, Christian etc etc.

How can we ever tell if there has been something else?!?

swizzlenuts wrote:@STD_Caps

I'd say they aren't being ignorant because they are offering another possible explanation to the commonly accepted notion. I still don't see how claiming that we know how the universe works and can understand the universe is arrogant.

I believe it is fair enough to believe that we can understand most of what goes on in our physical experience. However, I do not consider the be and end all. I have a problem with any kind of 'truth'. Religion is a bullshit 'truth' and science can be too. It is a tool which can come up with extremely solid conclusions but I totally reject the idea that it can answer all we need to know

swizzleuts wrote: Also why do you think there is something spiritual/supernatural in our lives? Every experiment involving conscienceness has show that the notion of dualism is more than likely not true. We are just physical beings.

Are you intentionally misreading me. Saying I will not completely reject something does not mean I believe in it. Nothing is 100%. An individual may claim that she flipped a regular coin 100,000 times and it came up heads each time. Now I will highly doubt it. In fact, I won't believe it. However, I can not entirely reject the idea. A higher being is a far more complex and, in my opinion, far less likely possibility. But who am I to say that I can reject it absolutely?

swizzlenuts wrote: Btw, the 9/11 conspiracy has been pretty much refuted and debunked.

I DON'T CARE. I don't know 100% either way yet again. I consider it pointless shit. Same with the Illuminati and every other fucking crack pot theory that might be... just might be... real. There are things I know like the continual destruction of our planet for economic gain; exploitation of poorer countries for their labour; the supporting of tyrannical regimes by our countries. All other conversations are secondary. These other things are not for debate or philosophy. The only issue is 'how do we right these wrongs'. Once done... then maybe I'll worry about lizard-Bush and whether God exists and if its fucking with us.

Anyone read that article I posted? Give it a go, it won't take long.

@Thrashduck
Yes only the presented ones we can scientifically test, but my point is why believe in any of those gods if they don't present any evidence?

@STD_caps
1st Paragraph: You're misunderstanding science. Science can never know the truth, it can never prove something 100%, but it gives us the best possible explanation. The whole idea is yeah it's possible that something else is happening, but if every single time a certain event has come up a certain way, wouldn't you put your money on that?
2nd Paragraph: It was a simple question, not meant to provoke you. I misread you thoughts on you're earlier point, and I agree with what you said.

I can see why you are being open minded about everything, but so is everyone in science; however, you also need to take in to account probability of how likely we'll find something out completely different from our known mechanism. Also, it's good to be open minded but not so open minded your brain falls out .

Also think of this: There could possibly be a tea pot floating around the earth. There is no evidence for it, but is it reasonable to think just because it could be there, that it is there?

swizzlenuts wrote:@Thrashduck
Yes only the presented ones we can scientifically test, but my point is why believe in any of those gods if they don't present any evidence?

I don't believe that they are there in those forms. I believe SOMETHING MIGHT be there. And yeh there could be. COULD. Not IS.

swizzlenuts wrote:Also think of this: There could possibly be a tea pot floating around the earth. There is no evidence for it, but is it reasonable to think just because it could be there, that it is there?

No, you should not believe it is there. Heard the argument before and it's brilliant (like Dawkin's Spaghetti Monster when he was in SP - I haven't read much Dawkins myself...).
To extend the argument, I don't think it's there but until I directly know to the contrary I will not reject it completely. I effectively think the tea pot is bullshit. However, it doesn't bother me if someone else chooses to believe in the tea pot. Or even quite a few people. But when this tea pot becomes an institution that exploits, oppresses and quashes people I then take MAJOR issues with the whole idea of tea pots in space.