Originally posted by rwingett Every single sentence of your post is a falsehood. It's mind boggling how a presumably intelligent person could utter them all and keep a straight face.
First of all, the vast majority of atheists do not claim to 'know' that there is no god. It is precisely because you, and christians generally, cannot prove the existence of god then his existence must ...[text shortened]... ut atheism. It should, if you're half as intelligent as I tenuously give you credit for.
You say the first humans were necessarily atheists, what logical steps did you take to reach this conclusion? The first humans of whom there is recorded existential evidence were theistic. So unless you happened to know any chaps who lived before this then your statement is groundless.
You say every sentence of my last post was false, how can this be when many of these sentences were questions, questions which you do not answer.
You say every child is born an atheist, what gives you this idea?
We have gone through the argument about the burden of proof already, you are wrong, I can't be bothered explaining it again. Take the trouble to go to uni and do a course in legal theory.
Originally posted by wittywonka In my opinion, even though atheists constantly claim that atheism is simply a "lack of faith," they do have a great deal of faith to believe that there is no God.
Originally posted by Marinkatomb No, saying that God exists without one scrap of reasoning is illogical. If i said to you i really really believe a Unicorn created the universe you'd laugh in my face (as you should do!) Evolution shows how simple things evolved into complicated things, it is THE explanation of life as we know it. There is no reason to deny that God exists because there ...[text shortened]... You feel you can fill this gap with some imaginary super being. We see no reason to do this.
See no reason? See no reason? Who wouldn't honestly ask the question, "who made all this?" when first glimpsing the beauty of nature? After all, it is an elementary principle that you cannot make something out of nothing. Even kids readily understand this. (Such a proposition may very well be the beginning of logic! Have you ever thought of that?) "Who made all this?" It is one of the first great questions children intuitively wonder about. Yet you say, 'there is no reason to deny that God exists because there was nothing to suggest he did in the first place'. Obviously that's not true. Children innately wonder about it. And why? Because the world itself, its very existence, is enough to suggest that there is a creator.
Originally posted by DazzlerUK It is impossible to prove something is false, for if it ever is true, that 'proof' would be wrong.
Having said that, would it not be the same to say you have a great deal of faith to believe there is no Santa Claus, or Easter Bunny?
When there is absolutely no evidence for something, surely it does not take any faith to believe it doesn't exist? It's just common sense.
No, it only requires very little faith to disbelieve in Santa and Easter Bunny, but it still requires faith because, as you rightly point out, they cannot be disproved. This is not to say that nothing can be disproved, study mathematics, for example.
Boy, this is getting tiresome! The problem with internet debating sites such as these is that people can be completely defeated and still post irrational crap, like dr ringlets is doing! I can't be bothered arguing with someone like that!
Originally posted by Marinkatomb No, saying that God exists without one scrap of reasoning is illogical. If i said to you i really really believe a Unicorn created the universe you'd laugh in my face (as you should do!).
Well, no, I'd respect your beliefs, and look forward to the Unicorn Festival. The more the merrier. I don't know if it's the weather, but it seems like the New Wave atheists in the style of Dawkins, the amateur philosopher, are smugger than Puritans and about as joyful.
Originally posted by Marinkatomb Sorry i appeared to miss the second half of your post 😕
How on EARTH can you expect negative religion to come about before 'positive' religion??????????? How can you have negative 'x' before 'x'? Because religion came first doesn't make it right! Just because an idea is spoken before some one says 'you idiot!', doesn't make the person who accuses the first of being an idiot automatically wrong!
I never claimed that the fact positive religion was older made it more accurate, I merely pointed out that it was in fact older. Why don't you read the post before posting your self-evident whinges?
Originally posted by epiphinehas See no reason? See no reason? Who wouldn't honestly ask the question, "who made all this?" when first glimpsing the beauty of nature? After all, it is an elementary principle that you cannot make something out of nothing. Even kids readily understand this. (Such a proposition may very well be the beginning of logic! Have you ever thought of that?) ...[text shortened]... ause the world itself, its very existence, is enough to suggest that there is a creator.
No, you are wrong i'm afraid. The question "who made all this" is the wrong way to ask the question. The question is "How did all this come to be?" This question does not rule out the possibility that a God created 'it', but it doesn't assume it! If a God created the Universe, then sooner or later some evidence of this will be discovered. At present there is none, so it should be discounted as a possibility until such a time as some evidence does point to it. How can anyone argue otherwise???
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Well, no, I'd respect your beliefs, and look forward to the Unicorn Festival. The more the merrier. I don't know if it's the weather, but it seems like the New Wave atheists in the style of Dawkins, the amateur philosopher, are smugger than Puritans and about as joyful.
I don't mean to be smug, if i come across like that i appologise. If you read Dawkins book you'll see why this is the case...
Originally posted by princeoforange But it can't give any logical explanation of HOW this happened, or where the simple things came from in the first place.
Neither does religion. One is based on provable fact, the other is based on compelling fiction. Just because Science can't explain it does not make a case for God.
Originally posted by Marinkatomb I don't mean to be smug, if i come across like that i appologise. If you read Dawkins book you'll see why this is the case...
If I read Dawkins' book, I'll understand why you're coming across as smug? 🙂 Which book though? The books on evolution are excellent; the one on God is feeble. I find Shelley a far more convincing apologist for atheism.
Originally posted by princeoforange But it can't give any logical explanation of HOW this happened, or where the simple things came from in the first place.
Your first assertion is wrong. The Theory of Evolution Evolution by Natural Selection explains extremely well HOW evolution happened.
You second assertion is correct. I think most people agree though that the ToEbNS does not explain where the simple thing came from in the first place. Maybe GodDunnit, maybe it was Steve, or the FSM. Maybe it just happened through natural processes, time and chance, like pretty much everything else in nature.
Originally posted by Marinkatomb Neither does religion. One is based on provable fact, the other is based on compelling fiction. Just because Science can't explain it does not make a case for God.
If it is provable fact as you say it is, could you kindly prove it.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage If I read Dawkins' book, I'll understand why you're coming across as smug? 🙂 Which book though? The books on evolution are excellent; the one on God is feeble. I find Shelley a far more convincing apologist for atheism.
Originally posted by Penguin Your first assertion is wrong. The Theory of Evolution Evolution by Natural Selection explains extremely well HOW evolution happened.
You second assertion is correct. I think most people agree though that the ToEbNS does not explain where the simple thing came from in the first place. Maybe GodDunnit, maybe it was Steve, or the FSM. Maybe it just happene ...[text shortened]... natural processes, time and chance, like pretty much everything else in nature.
--- Penguin.
If the theory, or hypothesis as I prefer, explains "extremely well" how evolution happened, then perhaps you could recite the explanation because I am not familiar with this particular facet of the hypothesis.
I know my second assertion is correct, but how can you say that "maybe it just happened through natural processes without giving any possible natural process for the origin of all things excluding a creator?
Is Christianity the only way to prove GOD?
25 Jun '07 10:02
Back to Top