Should christians love money so much ?!

[gooram]

atheism is faith as much as religion is.

one is one, one is the other.

I disagree with this. You don't need to have faith to conclude that something does not exist where there exists no evidence to the contrary.

Proving the non-existence of something is near impossible, there are a million things you could conjure up that cannot be proven wrong but in all probability are impossible to exist. Now to say that we don't know what we don't know, I don't think is a very helpful argument. I agree that we don't but how can make assertions about something that we clearly do not know?

Ah you say, that makes you agnostic because you're admitting you don't know, I also disagree with that argument on the same grounds. Why is the existence of a god or gods possible while my invisible talking pet giraffe is not? A rediculous example? Absolutely!

 

[Aaron Sice]

I disagree with this. You don't need to have faith to conclude that something does not exist where there exists no evidence to the contrary.

Proving the non-existence of something is near impossible, there are a million things you could conjure up that cannot be proven wrong but in all probability are impossible to exist. Now to say that we don't know what we don't know, I don't think is a very helpful argument. I agree that we don't but how can make assertions about something that we clearly do not know?

Ah you say, that makes you agnostic because you're admitting you don't know, I also disagree with that argument on the same grounds. Why is the existence of a god or gods possible while my invisible talking pet giraffe is not? A rediculous example? Absolutely!

find me evidence that there is NO god.

really - a scrap of evidence - anything.

without evidence, you are basing your argument on belief, rationale, faith - whatever.

you believe there is no god because....? some science book told you how the universe was created? a book written by man and probably a summation of over 2000 years of research on the subject....?

sounds awfully familiar.

while i have trouble believing there is a god, i am certainly open to the idea that one may exist. i am also entirely open to the idea that one may NOT exist. agnostic? agnostic by pure definition is someone who is non-committal - so i fail to see how making someone "agnostic" - which is "anti spiritual knowledge" - means they don't believe in god.

one can believe in a god and still be spiritually immature - look at the USA.

it's all faith until we witness and document the evidence to either contrary.

considering CERN physically re-created a big bang in their reactor (that's right - something from nothing) is a very large masterstroke in proof against god.

but, strong evidence is not a conviction.

 

[Hoffy]

find me evidence that there is NO god.

really - a scrap of evidence - anything.

without evidence, you are basing your argument on belief, rationale, faith - whatever.

....or common sense based on the history of man kind never providing a scrap of evidence that there is a god. The burden of proof lays with those making the claim of an existence. A burden which has proved beyond theists.

But so long as their definition is so conveniently loose as to what god is, like the Rabbi on Q and A the other night who said "defining what we mean by god, undermines the concept" it makes it impossible to disprove an undefined concept. What are we disproving????

I'm with Gooram, you can't prove his invisible talking pet giraffe doesn't exist either. But you know it doesn't. That is what we use our brains for.

 

[Token Funder]

find me evidence that there is NO god.

really - a scrap of evidence - anything.

without evidence, you are basing your argument on belief, rationale, faith - whatever.

you believe there is no god because....? some science book told you how the universe was created? a book written by man and probably a summation of over 2000 years of research on the subject....?

sounds awfully familiar.

while i have trouble believing there is a god, i am certainly open to the idea that one may exist. i am also entirely open to the idea that one may NOT exist. agnostic? agnostic by pure definition is someone who is non-committal - so i fail to see how making someone "agnostic" - which is "anti spiritual knowledge" - means they don't believe in god.

one can believe in a god and still be spiritually immature - look at the USA.

it's all faith until we witness and document the evidence to either contrary.

considering CERN physically re-created a big bang in their reactor (that's right - something from nothing) is a very large masterstroke in proof against god.

but, strong evidence is not a conviction.

Try and disprove the "theory" that everything in existence came into being extactly 7 seconds ago, including all memory and physical evidence that the universe is, in fact, older than 7 seconds.

It's a pointless process and lacks utility. Good for freaking out drug-addled philisophy students, but little else.

There is no evidence for the existence of any gods, not for that matter unicorns, leprechauns, poltergeists, astral travelling or a giant sentient teapot orbiting the earth, visible only to those it chooses to reveal itself.

It is no more a meaningful intellectual position to describe onesefl as agnostic on the question of gods as it is to be agnotistic on the Teapot Controversy.

In any case, it is not a question of disproving the existence of said invisible sentient teapot; it is down to those how would propose the existence of something for which no evidence exists to bring some evidence to the table.

Isaac Asimov, fabulous writer, renaissance man and groomer of extraordinary sideburn, summarises the position I take on these matters nicely:

Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death? No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no. One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?" "Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.

 

[aussierogue]

Good on ya Blue card - atleast as a probable non believer you logically accept that one day we may have proof there is a god. That could be on your death bed or in an after life or even sooner.

Science / medicine etc they dont give all the answers because they dont understand all the causes. You cant test for something if you dont know what you are looking at in the first place.

So called medical miracles happen all the time - completely unexplained by the medical profession. If doctors cant explain why deadly cancers sometimes just disappear (smallish field) what hope have scientists got to explain the mysterious of the universe.

How can we create a big bang yet we cant explain why someone given weeks to live then goes on to live for 50 more years?

A friend of mines kid had problems with his eyes. Hundreds of different diagnosis from experts with phd's and leading medical specialists. 2 years later he went and saw a naturopath who prescribed magnesium and he was cured.

Why is it that specialists, gp's, never suggested magnesium supplements? Answer - because they didnt think about it. It never occured to them. These guys are all trained only to look within their own narrow conscious range.

Magnesium is not god but it proves that science / medicine (those types of disciplines) are so hit and miss its not funny. Science and medicine have achieved great things but they cant explain a huge number of other things.

Its because they fail to consider the options.

Look at the human brain. Still completley misunderstood by science and medicine. When miracles happen all that doctors can say is that there are things we dont understand. Very wise words - they should extrapolate that out a little more. Yet you guys can explain logically how the worlds was created and why we are here. please you dont get it because you dont know where to look.

Putting faith in science to me is much less wise than accepting there is a higher force at play. It is infact the only truely logical or atleast honest thing we can accept. We are just humans after all.

We just dont know.

 

[wobbycarly]

*snip*
considering CERN physically re-created a big bang in their reactor (that's right - something from nothing) is a very large masterstroke in proof against god.
*snip*

Maybe the creation of the universe by God was a Big Bang - just because a Big Bang may have occurred, doesn't disprove that God exists.

 

[RPI]

Aussie there is a huge problem with your arugment. Science is evidence based, where as there is none for any god. THere is nothing logical about beleiving in a higher being. God is a creation to explain what the uneducated can't. Why don't you test your theory, wait till next time your are sick or injured and don't go the doctors, just pray instead. That ought to test your theory about how wise it is to trust science vs the pretend guy in the sky.

I'm sure when you were a child you had faith in santa clause too, but then as you got older you discovered it was all a myth. Even though there is more evidence for santa than there is for God.

The thread is going round in circles. The problem is that one side has evidence and logic, the other side has faith and belief. I am sure that you could sit in front of a christian with irrefutible proof that there is no God and they would still not beleive it.

 

[Hoffy]

accepting there is a higher force at play. It is infact the only truely logical or atleast honest thing we can accept. We are just humans after all.
.

IMHO, accepting there is a higher force at play is infact the antithesis of logic.

 

[Hoffy]

Maybe the creation of the universe by God was a Big Bang - just because a Big Bang may have occurred, doesn't disprove that God exists.

You would think he would have mentioned it in his best seller though wouldn't you.

 

[wobbycarly]

You would think he would have mentioned it in his best seller though wouldn't you.

You mean Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." BANG!

 

[Hoffy]

You mean Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." BANG!

No, I mean the big bang theory. The one that the theists scoff at. Not the 6 day version with a rest at the end. I always wonder given his power why he needed a days rest.

No doubt they will claim it as their own in the next edition of the book though, if they think it will help them get more recruits.

 

[Sunfish]

I'm with Gooram, you can't prove his invisible talking pet giraffe doesn't exist either. But you know it doesn't.

Reminds me of listening to The Goon Show on radio before TV.

One of the Goons was trampled by a soaking wet elephant.

"But there are no elephants this side of the Indian Ocean!"

"How do you think it got soaking wet." Boom Boom.

How can I "prove" that I could not be trampled by a soaking wet elephant? I can't!

You can't prove a negative but any insurance company would be happy insure me against the risk.

 

[wobbycarly]

No, I mean the big bang theory. The one that the theists scoff at. Not the 6 day version with a rest at the end. I always wonder given his power why he needed a days rest.

No doubt they will claim it as their own in the next edition of the book though, if they think it will help them get more recruits.

?? Don't see your point.

Couldn't "Day 1" be the equivalent of the "big bang theory"?

And to follow on...

Assume the 6 days are an allegory. It is suggested in 2 Peter 3:8 that "... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." In other words, time means nothing to God.

So the "evolution" (read creation) of the plants, animals, man, etc. is recorded in Genesis in a time frame that is imaginable by Man. Can you really comprehend 6 billion years or whatever the suggested age of the Earth is?

BTW, I'm not looking for an argument While I DO believe, this is supposed to be light-hearted.

 

[Hoffy]

?? Don't see your point.

Couldn't "Day 1" be the equivalent of the "big bang theory"?

And to follow on...

Assume the 6 days are an allegory. It is suggested in 2 Peter 3:8 that "... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." In other words, time means nothing to God.

So the "evolution" (read creation) of the plants, animals, man, etc. is recorded in Genesis in a time frame that is imaginable by Man. Can you really comprehend 6 billion years or whatever the suggested age of the Earth is?

BTW, I'm not looking for an argument While I DO believe, this is supposed to be light-hearted.

That's the beauty and effectiveness of the bible isn't it. It can mean whatever you want it to mean.