Banning religions

we have to disagree on that since the church refuses food to third world people unless they convert !

 

doesn't matter, free association.

I shouldn't have to financially support anything that i don't agree with.

If churches are good for the community then let the community support the churches, not the State, hell isn't that the whole point of a tithe(sp)?

I don't remember Jesus petitioning the Roman Governor for funds...

Stop sponging.

 

The bit that says

If you ask me to disprove gods existence that would be illogical - since god does not exist I cannot prove god does not exist. I can look for a thousand trillion million billion years and keep showing you god isnt here - yet you may assert it exists - so I just say - prove it !
your abscence of proof that god exists is my proof that god does not
but it doesnt work the other way round - after all if someone says god loves you there has to be a thing that is called god - otherwise the statement is nonsense

If I say god does not exist you cannot then say prove it !!!!!!!!!
for the reason stated above - so my abscence of proof does not validate god
whereas your continued abscence of proof invalidates your own claim that god exists

 

So we can't see God. We can not observe God. Therefore God can not be proved with science because science deals with the material world. But can God be proved through reason which deals with concepts?

To prove God we have to make God nessarcy for the universe. So we are begged the question: Does the universe need a maker?

So if you look at the universe realy there seems to be no need for such an enity, but the universe only seems like this if we don't think of it having events taking place in it, that is, if we don't see actions reactions, cause, effect ect.

But we do see actions, reactions, cause, effect ect.

If the universe has no fist cause, why does the universe have a chain of cause and effect in it? If their were no first cause or action then no events in the universe would take place. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. This is differnt with living beings. Living beings can decide to move on a whime. So the first cause would have to be a being aka a God. If it is first then it would have to be enternal and be existance itself or the Athiests would say "What made it?" So you can see we have all the condictions needed. The universe's chain of events needs a first case. That fist cause must be self motivating and enternal so you get God.

In essance this arument is "Why does the universe not stay at rest?Becuase God gave it a action which it followed with reaction."

I bet this argument will be ripped to peices. Go ahead.

 

Bullshit wordplay.

You can prove a theory to be true.
You can prove a theory to be false.
You can show that a theory can not(yet) be proven true or false.

But you can't state that an unproven theory is true while another unproven theory is false. All you can state is that they are unproven. neither true nor false until it is proven one way or the other.

 

No - you just have to show me that I am wrong to believe god doesnt exist - it doent matter how - you just have to prove it exists

never mind shane - one day you'll work it out !

I was thinking about what might constitute proof of god - it could be that one person knows god exists - but no-one believes them- how could it be proven god exists

I dont know - that might be a good way out for christians is to say we have the proof but the proof need not necessarily make sense to non believers !

I dont know I will try and construct a proof for christianity

 

Same to you

Look at it this way:

If you can't state with 100% certainty that a theory is false, then you can't state at all that it is false without knowingly lying(because it is possible that it is true), and vice versa.

For instance:

It has been proven that the boiling point of water is 100 C (212 F) at standard pressure.

So, when someone walks up to me and says, "the boiling point of water is 151 C at standard pressure!", i am able to respond with, "no, that is false."

Why?
Because it can be proven to be either true or false.

But

Take the following statements having to do with the supernatural(that which can't be proven by current scientific methods):

"Ghosts exists."
"Demons do not exist."

Neither one of these statements can be proven to be true or false, i can only guess the likelihood and probabilty of their truthfulness or falsehood.

So, someone walks up to me and says, "Ghosts exist.", i am able to then respond with, "It is unlikely(to me) that Ghosts exist", i can not say with 100% certainty, "that is false, ghosts do not exist".

someone walks up to me and says, "Demons do not exist", i am able to then respond with, "It is possible that demons exists", i am not able to say with 100% certainty, "you are wrong, demons exist".

When discussing an unproven theory, one can never claim that said theory is true or false until one is able to prove it to be true or false, one can only claim the likelyhood or probability of a belief being true or false(and even that is subjective), false is not the default for an unproven theory.

Theism and atheism are both unproven theories and because one can never prove or disprove a "supernatural" being, neither is true nor false.

They are only positions of opposing beliefs.

You either believe it or you do not, but you can't prove it either way, so you can't say it is false any more than you can say that it is true.

Atheist:
Theism seems unlikely to be true and atheism seems likely to be true, so I choose to believe atheism.

Theist:
Atheism seems unlikely to be true and theism seems likely to be true, so I choose to believe theism.

Neither is based on reason or logic or science or anything other than personal belief.



I just wish you'd both be honest about it...

 

Originally Posted by osutuffy
No, but our constitution allows it. So, I guess you will just have to put up with people practicing religions as well as we have to put up with you.

""Nope. Sorry little girl but I have FREE WILL. You Bible told me so.""

I can say all kinds of things about this, but I will stick to your choice of arguments.

Yep, sorry old fart, our constitution does allow both of our beliefs, so you may not have to like it, but you can't stop it. It is not up to you to go back and change the bill of rights.
My Bible does not tell you anything, according to you. you do not support religion or the Bible, so you can't use the Bible to back up your claim.
Our government does not allow you to stop religion. It doesn't force it down your throat either, but you are not allowed to descriminate against someone for race, religion, or sex.

 

Can you explain that sentence please shane?

Absolutely - thank you for supporting the atheist case proximo ! I thought you were a christian? Strange how first impressions can be wrong !
yes theocracies dont largely allow oppositional argumeents do they - theres no christians in the government of iran - we need to ensure that government in the west does not become theocratic. Hmm I also see what you mean in another sense - of course - religion being irrational is dangerous in itself and therefore might be best taught only in the churches rather than at schools - in other words are we educating fascists against the principles of liberalism? yes proximo for once you are talking sense !
Of course because of the intollerances shown by theocratic nations we should not tollerate theocracy otherwise we will be banned by it
FREE SPEECH IS PARAMOUNT TO LIBERALISM!
so I should still support free speech by demanding religion prove its worth !

Nooooo ! I wouldnt say that !
I wouldnt say its persecution - we arent out to kill people for their beliefs just to inject some rationale and education into society - against the intollerance, bigotry, and irrational persecution of one cult sect by another.
War begets war - education begets education - if people are ignorant and stupid enough to believe their god will reward them for killing people of another politics and/or religion - we want to end that extremism - well I dont usually advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater - but in this case its an empty tub - debateably so -
Also I am not too sure how you are using the word "implies" because not many people are implying this... ... if you know what I mean
Surely christians and all religions have a duty to oust their extremists for cometh the day when extremism killed the cat ! It is hardly rational to have creationism based on non-existent god - is it now ? or are you a creationist extremist? if god exists and he created the world in six days and the bible account of the worlds creation is correct - teach creationism in schools - no-one teaches unqualified darwinism in schools its qualified by the thought it may not be true ! but in the abscence of a better theory ....

 

double post

 

I thought i explained and clarified within that post, what part is confusing?

If can't state with 100% certainty that a statement or belief is true or false, then making any judgement of truthfulness or falsehood about said statement or belief is merely a matter of opinion and not fact.

The fact is that neither an atheist nor a theist can prove their POV to 100% certainty, so why should one be granted legitimacy at the exclusion of the other?

A theist's beliefs are no more or less true/false than an atheist's beliefs.

makes no sense to say one is based in reason and one is not, neither is based in reason, they both only use reason and logic as tools to support their POV...

 

the belief that god exists does not hold the same logical weight that god does not exist since one is evident - There is no evidence that god exists therefore the statement god does not exist holds more weight.
it is simply evident that there is no evidence of the prescence of god otherwise show me where it is

god exists has no evidence -

you may like to educate yourself on this
its the subject of why existence is not a predicate
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info

all you have to do to find out more is google
predicate existence god

so you see - if I have evidence that god does not exist - the evidence simply is the abscence of god - NOTHING ELSE WOULD DO EH - ????????
How can anything but the abscence of god satisfy the condition "DOES NOT EXIST" so I am saying either god does not exist OR we just havent found it
CHRISTIANS SAY IT DOES EXIST - so where is it ??????????????​

 

Only if there is enough evidence to conclude that God does not exist which there isn't.

An atheist's arguement carries no more weight than a theist's.

Both are making statements that can't be proven.

There is no scientific evidence that god exists therefore we can conclude that the existence of god is questionable.

There is no scientific evidence that god does not/can not exist therefore we can conclude that the non-existence of god is questionable.

Think of a polygraph.

The results can be either true, false, or inconclusive.

If you can't prove it to be true or false, the answer (currently) lies with the latter, false is not the default.

 

FUCKIN ELL GIVE IT UP SHANE !!!! click on google links to do with the logical analysis of language applied to ontological predicates

 

Agreed, so showing me the abscence of god in the universe is all you need to do...

 

And if the possibilty remains that god does exist and you just haven't found it, then any statement of certainty that god does not exist carries little weight, now doesn't it?

Because the possibilty remains that god can/does exist.

If you can't show something to be untrue(which you can't), then you can't very well claim that it is false, now can you?
Or are you trying to claim that everything is false until it is proven to be true?

silly man....

 

Absolutely - its called the justification of beliefs !!!!
I cannot and do not need to justify what is evident - people who assert that god is evident must prove it - why BECAUSE ITS NOT EVIDENT !!!! ITS A BELIEF NOT EVIDENCE
ALL I SEE EVIDENT IS THE ABSCENCE OF GOD
SHOW ME THE PRESCENCE OF GOD - show me the justification
LOOK OVER THERE ! GOD NOT EXISTING
look up - gods not there
smell the air dig a thousand feet down
do a million billion things - NO GOD yet you say god exist
SHOW ME IT !!!

 

Look at this way:


"I believe that somewhere in the universe is a planet that looks lik our that smells like ours, that feels like ours, the only difference between this planet and ours is that it is inhabited by giant purple toads."

Again, you can certainly say, "until i visit this planet and have a proper conversation with one of these toads i find it unlikely that such a place exists."

But it makes zero sense to say, "no planet such as that you are describing exists at all."

Because it could very well exist and you haven't found it yet.

You look in the sky and don't see god, maybe it's in the ground, maybe it exists in a different dimension, maybe it doesn't exist, all of these carry equal weight until one can prove otherwise.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

You say: "SHOW ME IT!!!"

Ignoring the fact that there are properties in the universe that can not be seen with the human eye, can't be felt with human skin, can't be heard with human ears.

Maybe god is a giant toad made of gas on a far away planet who can only be seen in a certain shade of ultraviolet and heard with the pitch of a dog whistle.

Unlikely, improbable, but not impossible and so not a false statement.

inconclusive.

Seems awfully egotistical to claim something does not exist when you haven't had the chance to see everything that DOES exist...