to the non believers...

Originally posted by eatmybishop
what would it actually take god to do to make you accept he/she is real?

There is nothing that god could do because there no god. It's as simple as that. There is no convincing evidence that god exists. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence (i.e. man's inhumanity to man) to support that he doesn't exit, doesn't care, or is not around.

Originally posted by eatmybishop
what would it actually take god to do to make you accept he/she is real?

Make every post on RHP an intelligent one...although perhaps that is not very fair, as that may be beyond the powers of even God...

Originally posted by Stregone
There is nothing that god could do because there no god. It's as simple as that. There is no convincing evidence that god exists. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence (i.e. man's inhumanity to man) to support that he doesn't exit, doesn't care, or is not around.

nice to see that you came to the conclusion that god doesn't exist because there is no proof. excellent reasoning. so lack of proof of a concept means non-existence of that concept/object. you would make dawkings proud

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
nice to see that you came to the conclusion that god doesn't exist because there is no proof. excellent reasoning. so lack of proof of a concept means non-existence of that concept/object. you would make dawkings proud

When did he say he came to came to the conclusion that god doesn't exist because there is no proof? Why are you intentionally misrepresenting him? Is his argument so good that you cannot address it?

"There is nothing that god could do because there no god. It's as simple as that. There is no convincing evidence that god exists."

he didn't say "my opinion is that he doesn't exist"
he didn't say "there is no proof of his existence so i say he most probably doesn't exist"


he is sure. ALL the scientists are never sure about most theories. are always in search of new evidence and other possible explanations. but atheists are SURE god doesn't exist. how do you not see flaws in this judgment? that is why i came down on him

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

he is sure.

The whole notion of what constitutes evidence for the existence of God ... I don't know ... One person will say that the mere fact that the universe exists is evidence for a Creator ... Another will say that the evident lack of observed divine intervention is evidence to the contrary ... Only bias accounts for preferring one to another. Agnostics, which is to say skeptics, are the only realists.

I'd say an agnostic is a skeptic without, uh, balls.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The whole notion of what constitutes evidence for the existence of God ... I don't know ... One person will say that the mere fact that the universe exists is evidence for a Creator ... Another will say that the evident lack of observed divine intervention is evidence to the contrary ... Only bias accounts for preferring one to another. Agnostics, whic ...[text shortened]... keptics, are the only realists.

I'd say an agnostic is a skeptic without, uh, balls.

well i prefer the "we cannot prove god" approach.

if so, it comes to a matter of personal choice to believe or not believe. sure some factors may influence in what direction or another.

what really pisses me off is certainty on the god issue. or most or most other issue. a quote by Richard Dawkings:"anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane". what happened to reasonable doubt? how can one progress if he doesn't admit the possibility he is wrong?

stregone is sure in his first sentence that god doesn't exist. he later makes a statement that is more acceptable for me at least:
"There is no convincing evidence that god exists. On the contrary, there is lots of evidence (i.e. man's inhumanity to man) to support that he doesn't exit, doesn't care, or is not around."
overall his post is rather contradictory. and he goes from "doesn't exit", to "doesn't exit, doesn't care, or is not around".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

what really pisses me off is certainty on the god issue. or most or most other issue. a quote by Richard Dawkings:"anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane". what happened to reasonable doubt? how can one progress if he doesn't admit the possibility he is wrong?

stregone is sure in his first sentence that god doesn't ...[text shortened]... he goes from "doesn't exit", to "doesn't exit, doesn't care, or is not around".

I couldn't agree more. Dawkins' very wording is lamentable: believe. What exactly does 'believing in evolution' mean? I can believe that evolution is a plausible theory (quite possibly even approved by God; 'look at that creation go!'😉 -- but believe in it -- as an article of faith? I'm assuming that you're quoting Dawkins accurately, of course.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he is sure. ALL the scientists are never sure about most theories. are always in search of new evidence and other possible explanations. but atheists are SURE god doesn't exist. how do you not see flaws in this judgment? that is why i came down on him

Yet you chose not to address his argument but instead to misrepresent him. Again I ask, why?

Are you sure that you typed that post on a computer? Do you have proof? Is it at most a theory? Are you still in search of new evidence?
If I say I am sure about something, it doesn't mean my mind cannot be changed if new evidence comes to light. I am sure that God does not exist, and unless new evidence comes to light I would stake my life on it.

I do not see any flaws in his judgment and you are yet to show that there are any.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what really pisses me off is certainty on the god issue. or most or most other issue. a quote by Richard Dawkings:"anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane". what happened to reasonable doubt? how can one progress if he doesn't admit the possibility he is wrong?

Again I ask, do you believe that you are typing your posts on a computer? If you don't, would I be wrong to say that you are either stupid, ignorant or insane? Do you admit the possibility that you are wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again I ask, do you believe that you are typing your posts on a computer? If you don't, would I be wrong to say that you are either stupid, ignorant or insane? Do you admit the possibility that you are wrong?

OK ... I'm using a computer to post messages on an Internet forum. I could have been hypnotised -- or something -- into believing that I am actually typing on thin air ... In which case I'd be deluded, but not necessarily delusional. But ... ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you chose not to address his argument but instead to misrepresent him. Again I ask, why?

Are you sure that you typed that post on a computer? Do you have proof? Is it at most a theory? Are you still in search of new evidence?
If I say I am sure about something, it doesn't mean my mind cannot be changed if new evidence comes to light. I am sure tha ...[text shortened]... e on it.

I do not see any flaws in his judgment and you are yet to show that there are any.

of course you don't see any flaws in his judgment because his judgment is your own. you are also sure that god does not exist and are proud for being a rational intelligent human.

how can you be sure that god does not exist when not a single evidence was produced to disprove him?


"If I say I am sure about something, it doesn't mean my mind cannot be changed if new evidence comes to light."

how can you be sure of mostly anything? you cannot say that "i am sure that by putting a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger i will end my life" because you might miss, or you might survive with grave wounds or the gun might jam.

there are no final truths.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again I ask, do you believe that you are typing your posts on a computer? If you don't, would I be wrong to say that you are either stupid, ignorant or insane? Do you admit the possibility that you are wrong?

yes i do. as i am typing these words, i might not be typing but dreaming of typing. as i admitted the possibility of dreaming i use my reasoning to determine if i am actually typing or i am dreaming. and since i hold the latter to be improbable i decide that i am really typing.

the god issue is even easier to address. god either exists or doesn't exists. if i hold all the scientifical facts to be true and see that none of them contradicts god's existence i lean towards his existence to be true. and anatheist will look at the same scientifical facts and decide there is not a single evidence to support god so he leans towards is non-existence. so far so good. nobody made any error

error occurs when either the believer or the atheist states that he or she is sure his assessment is correct even though nothing disproves or proves either.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes i do. as i am typing these words, i might not be typing but dreaming of typing. as i admitted the possibility of dreaming i use my reasoning to determine if i am actually typing or i am dreaming. and since i hold the latter to be improbable i decide that i am really typing.

And you sound pretty sure about it, even though you wont admit it.

the god issue is even easier to address. god either exists or doesn't exists.
Not nearly as easy as it sounds. It is more a case of whether or not a being exists that matches to a certain degree the definition of God in question. Also if the definition in question is incoherent or illogical then there is no need to even talk of existence.

if i hold all the scientifical facts to be true and see that none of them contradicts god's existence i lean towards his existence to be true.
But not based on the lack of facts. You do that based on other reasons. Do you similarly believe in Santa, elves and invisible pink unicorns?

error occurs when either the believer or the atheist states that he or she is sure his assessment is correct even though nothing disproves or proves either.
Firstly I find your repeated insistence on using the word 'proof' unreasonable. We both know and agree that the word cannot properly be applied to reality.
Secondly, the poster made it quite clear that there was, in his opinion, significant evidence to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. And you are intentionally misrepresenting him again by suggesting that the scenario is one of no evidence either way.
Thirdly, you are assigning the word 'sure' more meaning than it generally has in everyday language. I have already pointed out that I am in fact sure of a great many things and so are you, and that in no way implies that I have proof of them or that I will never change my mind.