NJ: Do you believe in god? No? No, you can't have kids, not yours.

[wooflepoof]

^ This.

Most atheists put their trust into the scientific method; they choose to think with logic and in doing so they put themselves at a disadvantage. There is always the possibility that a god exists, however we have no scientific data that supports this hypothesis. In the absence of data to support H1, the null hypothesis (H0) must be accepted as true until data exists to support H1.

When an atheist says "there is no god" what they are saying is "there is no scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists, therefore the null hypothesis of god's non-existence must be accepted despite the logical fallacy that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a thing - one can only fail to support the existence of that thing."

* Anyone know how to do superscript and subscript in here?

Well its like Dawkins (pretty much) says, We're ALL atheists to just about every god that's ever come into existence, some of us just go one god further.

Also blind, that emo phillips or whoever bit you posted was funny as all hell

EDIT no pun intended

 

[Doctor Blade]

Most atheists put their trust into the scientific method; they choose to think with logic and in doing so they put themselves at a disadvantage. There is always the possibility that a god exists, however we have no scientific data that supports this hypothesis. In the absence of data to support H1, the null hypothesis (H0) must be accepted as true until data exists to support H1.

So you still have no proof god doesn't exist. I mean, you can wave the wand of logic around as much as you like, but you're not actually "Proving" anything by saying "Since I can't see it, it doesn't exist". Or, can you prove there isn't a White Unicorn in my back yard?

 

[argatoga]

You can't argue faith. There is just as much proof that there is (or isn't a God) as there is that a rabbit is controlling the whole of existence.

 

[wooflepoof]

So you still have no proof god doesn't exist. I mean, you can wave the wand of logic around as much as you like, but you're not actually "Proving" anything by saying "Since I can't see it, it doesn't exist". Or, can you prove there isn't a White Unicorn in my back yard?

Nobody is saying i can't see it, therefore it doesnt exist. Thats against what science does. One of things science is about is explaining thing that cant be seen with our eyes. Thing is though, these things leave EVIDENCE so we can determine they exist based on said evidence and there's no evidence of faeries, unicorns, gods, cold fusion, alchemy, etc. The best thing about science though, is that there's never a 100% certainty of anything but if there's absolutely no evidence that unicorns exist let alone that they're in your backyard or that a god exists let alone that he gives a crap about these organisms on this tiny planet near an unspectacular star in a galaxy full of trillions of other stars in a cluster of billions of galaxies among billions of other clusters of galaxies and that he actually intervenes in our lives, we tend to not waste our time with it, evidence pending. just like we don't waste our time thinking about 'maybe leprechauns are real', its all equally ridiculous.

Bill Maher: "If Santa Claus can hit every house in the world." Steve Berg: "No, we don't believe in Santa Claus." Bill Maher: "Of course not, that's one man flying all around the world and dropping presents down a chimney. One man hearing everybody murmer at him at the same time, that I get."

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872?1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?"[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:"

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]

 

[argatoga]

As a staunch Teapotest I am offended!

Again some need/want the idea that there is a higher power and that there is life after death. No use arguing with them, and they shouldn't be trying to convert or oppressing the heathens.

It is a personal matter, saying one must be an Atheist or Christian is like saying someone should be straight or gay.

And no I am not accusing anyone here of forcing their beliefs on others.

 

[wooflepoof]

As a staunch Teapotest I am offended!

Again some need/want the idea that there is a higher power and that there is life after death. No use arguing with them, and they shouldn't be trying to convert or oppressing the heathens.

It is a personal matter, saying one must be an Atheist or Christian is like saying someone should be strait or gay.

And no I am not accusing anyone here of forcing their beliefs on others.

Well the 3 god of abraham religions are the ones that have had the most killing done in the name of their respected religions and have had the most influence in politics and whatever. Buddhism and Confucianism are more straight teachings on how to live, and other religions are more or less benign in nature. Besides the discrimination it promotes, much of Christianity and much of Judaism is generally harmless, but Islam has led to quite a bit of strife and all three have an influence on politics not necessarily with our best interests in mind.

Thats what I dont like.

"oh I don't hate them, GOD hates them." [protestor woman, on 'fags'] from Religulous

 

[argatoga]

The Korean battle monks proved otherwise. People will find any excuse to hurt other people. Jesus said to treat everyone as you would treat yourself, and we still have fighting.

We have had wars fought over non religious issues since as far back as we can see. Humans are a bunch of fuckers who will be assholes with or without religion.

 

[Blind_Io]

So you still have no proof god doesn't exist. I mean, you can wave the wand of logic around as much as you like, but you're not actually "Proving" anything by saying "Since I can't see it, it doesn't exist". Or, can you prove there isn't a White Unicorn in my back yard?

This is the age-old argument of theists. "Prove god doesn't exist." As I explained it's not possible to prove the non-existence of something, all you can do is show a lack of evidence to support the existence of that thing.

H1 (hypothesis one) - God exists.
H0 (null hypothesis) - God doesn't exist.

If you apply logical thinking and the scientific method then you are testing to prove H1. So if I want to prove H1 I devise a series of test for that hypothesis. So let's come up with a couple of scientific tests for that.

Premise: The bible says god exists. If the bible is factual then God exists.
Test: During the biblical story of creation God created the Firmament, a physical barrier between Earth and the heavens.

Test: Test for the presence of the Firmament.

Results: Telescopes can't see it. It has no detectable electromagnetic presence. Light does not refract off it. No space flight has ever bumped into it.

Conclusion: There is no evidence to support the existence of the Firmament, so we, the research team, accept the null hypothesis that the firmament does not exist as defined by this study, however, here are a list of tests we did not perform that may yield different results....
Until such time as the supernatural claims of the bible can be verified, we must accept the fact that the bible is not a historically authoritative source. Result: We cannot verify any evidence of the biblical story of creation in support of the existence of God. Further testing is needed, please take this into consideration for the quarterly budget review.

And that is how the scientific method works.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

So you still have no proof god doesn't exist. I mean, you can wave the wand of logic around as much as you like, but you're not actually "Proving" anything by saying "Since I can't see it, it doesn't exist". Or, can you prove there isn't a White Unicorn in my back yard?

I'll just leave this here.

 

[wooflepoof]

Oh yeah i forgot about that pic

 

[nomix]

You can't use the argument that one can't prove god doesn't exist. That is not science. Science is about what you can prove.

Again, faith and science doesn't go that well together. Faith can't be disproven, as it is not a scientific principle. And you can't apply the principle of faith ot science.

 

[Blind_Io]

Sorry, but I disagree on this one. You can disprove faith.

Example: I believe the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
Science has proven this is untrue.

Just because the thing in which some people have faith couldn't be more perfect for your argument doesn't make it true.

 

[jeffy777]

This discussion has gone in about 7 or 8 circles now :lol:

I think nomix summed it up the best:

If you believe, I respect that, if you don't believe, I respect that. And what really gets me going with rage is when people don't respect that, either way.

 

[nomix]

Sorry, but I disagree on this one. You can disprove faith.

Example: I believe the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
Science has proven this is untrue.

Just because the thing in which some people have faith couldn't be more perfect for your argument doesn't make it true.

That is not the point. The point is that faith is a concept you can't work science on. Science is factual, faith is, well, faith. It is about belief. And that's a pretty personal concept. It's like, well, above science..

 

[freeferrarisdonotexist]

I do believe religion has had a bad influence on many things- but-

Humans are a bunch of fuckers who will be assholes with or without religion.

This I also agree with.

 

[nomix]

With or without communism too?

Just had to.

 

[Top Geek]

Sorry, but I disagree on this one. You can disprove faith.

Example: I believe the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.
Science has proven this is untrue.

Just because the thing in which some people have faith couldn't be more perfect for your argument doesn't make it true.

I think he was referring more to the "does God exist" question.

As in: Can you prove that He exists? No. Can you prove that He doesn't exist? No.

 

[nomix]

And the question is, does it even matter if you can prove the devine?

 

[wooflepoof]

Thats why I posted the teapot argument, the burden wouldn't be on the scientists or skeptics to prove that he doesn't exist, it would be on the faithful to prove that he does. That being said the faithful don't have any desire to do such a thing (most of em) because their faith rewards them for ignorance and not asking questions or applying reason or logic to the stories they're told. I saw that as a great insult to my intellect and dignity as a huuman which is one of the reason I checked my faith at the door.

My only problem is that religion is the source of much conflict in the world and i think we'd do well to at the VERY least keep it out of politics but like Jeffy said we've been round this several times already so

 

[yeeha]

So you still have no proof god doesn't exist. I mean, you can wave the wand of logic around as much as you like, but you're not actually "Proving" anything by saying "Since I can't see it, it doesn't exist". Or, can you prove there isn't a White Unicorn in my back yard?

No one here claimed to disprove the existence of god.

It is inherently impossible to ever prove god does not exist. No matter what is discovered believers can always claim god made it that way.

The burden of proof is on those who claim god exists.

You say 'wave the wand of logic' like it is a bad thing to use logic.

This discussion has gone in about 7 or 8 circles now :lol:

I felt like going for another lap.