How many of you believe or do not believe in God?

[Fallen_Horse]

Haha true true.

By God I mean a higher being(s) that determined how our universe operates and created humanity.

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

Haha true true.

By God I mean a higher being(s) that determined how our universe operates and created humanity.

The government determines how we operate, and are very linked with how we've been socially constructed to think, which is arguably a key part of our 'humanity'...

More seriously, that's very very vague, what form does God take? If God does not take a form how can you talk about God in terms of being an entity?
Does God 'transcend' human understanding?

[Johnstuff]

Are non-human animals athiests?

I doubt they believe in god but I also doubt they have or need an argument as to why not.

(ok maybe a bit of a random post lol!)

[vCLaW]

2. I would like more of a proof that God doesn't exist. IMO an atheist needs to provide proof of God's non-existence, or the argument is flawed. Similarly, the religious need to be able to provide proof of Gods existence, which they cannot, therefore I am not religious. What would you say the atheist 'proof' is?

Why does proof of God's non-existence need to be provided? Can you prove there isn't a china teapot in orbit around the sun? Its too small to be detected with any telescopes. So do you believe it doesn't exist?

[Fallen_Horse]

The government determines how we operate, and are very linked with how we've been socially constructed to think, which is arguably a key part of our 'humanity'...

More seriously, that's very very vague, what form does God take? If God does not take a form how can you talk about God in terms of being an entity?
Does God 'transcend' human understanding?

Do humans transcend animal understanding? Of course there are parts of us that are too advanced for them to understand, but they still have a limited view of us. This would be the same as our view of God. And I don't suppose I understand why I seem vague? Lets say God is an invisible old dude in the sky, although I don't see how saying that will affect an argument...

Why does proof of God's non-existence need to be provided? Can you prove there isn't a china teapot in orbit around the sun? Its too small to be detected with any telescopes. So do you believe it doesn't exist?

In order to disbelieve in a God, there should be proof of God's non-existence, otherwise the argument is as flawed as faith. No one can prove God exists, which is why I will never be religious. Conversely, I don't believe atheists can prove God doesn't exist, which is why I judge atheism with equal harshness. I was trying to see if anyone here could provide arguments for atheism over agnosticism.
As far as the teapot, I really wouldn't know. I haven't been up there to check.

[Gelert]

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, City_of_F:

Take them on their merits. As with Dawkins. There is a big difference between critically evaluating something and discrediting. Take away the name and the fame and consider the scribblings. You are evaluating critically what I have to say here as someone with no name and no fame, and apparently no qualifications in the area.It's a level playing field then.

I think we can agree here. Critical thought it rather important.

As for ad hominem, I would say that we were discussing this on opposite sides of the fence. You don't have to agree with me, but it seems like you dislike Dawkins... or was I mistaken and you simply don't approve of his work?

I know you're basically stating he is misrepresenting himself, but I was curious if it was personal, so I was attempting to follow that line of reason...

Let me put it this way, I would be more interested in your stance on religion than on Dawkins. I'm not so attached to Dawkins that I am willing to blindly follow him; I tend to agree with a lot of what he says, so I am inclined to use him as a reference, but I don't have to like everything that a person is to agree with certain things they may have said.

I could care less as long as people begin to use critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs.

It's definitely not personal - I've never met RD. I experience a certain irritation with respect to him, but also respect his contribution over the years immensely. (Just today I name-checked him in a presentation as a means of getting a professional but non-specialist audience on the same page as me regarding an aspect of my work, and it seemed to have worked) But what concerns me as much if not more than the misrepresentation is the slide towards a certain kind of extremism he's experiencing. I won't say he's growing old disgracefully but there's a lack of elegance.

Although his comments re the pope are not far off the mark - but I think the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's brainstorm memo regarding the pope's visit is even better. Hooray for the civil service.

If you're interested in my stance re. God, well, have a look at p3 of this thread.

I think we're on the same side of the fence regarding critical thinking at least.

Are non-human animals athiests?

I doubt they believe in god but I also doubt they have or need an argument as to why not.

I can so tell when someone hasn't been to sunday school like a good little soldier. First, they don't have a thousand yard stare when a tub of vaseline hoves into view, and second they don't know about this.

Heaven is for people. Good people. Good people who brush their teeth and say please and thank you. It's not for animals. Animals go to animal heaven, if they've been good. Otherwise they burn for eternity. So no, little Timmy, you won't be able to have your pet hamsters and guinea pig with you when you die, because they'll be in guinea pig heaven. Oh and your pet rat will be burning in hell. Because rats are dirty sinful animals. Yeah.

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

The government determines how we operate, and are very linked with how we've been socially constructed to think, which is arguably a key part of our 'humanity'...

More seriously, that's very very vague, what form does God take? If God does not take a form how can you talk about God in terms of being an entity?
Does God 'transcend' human understanding?

Do humans transcend animal understanding? Of course there are parts of us that are too advanced for them to understand, but they still have a limited view of us. This would be the same as our view of God. And I don't suppose I understand why I seem vague? Lets say God is an invisible old dude in the sky, although I don't see how saying that will affect an argument...

But this isn't about if animals are justified in believing we exist. This is about if we're justified in believing in God's existence, the two aren't really comparable. For one they'd have to not believe that their sensory data is something to go by. This involves a very large leap of faith when you think about it.
On the other hand logic based faith tends to be much more abstract. This isn't about our direct perception, this is about explaining what causes the perception.

You've changed the definition of God a lot now, an old dude in the sky, so what qualities are we assigning to this old invisible dude?

The question if you challenge anything here would seem to be what justifies belief.
Science can't prove just anything.
On the other hand arguments for God can provide evidence for the FSM, the teapot, so on so forth.

[Fallen_Horse]

You are saying that logic arguments for God are flawed, and I agree. But I believe logic arguments against God are flawed as well. You say science can't prove just anything, and I agree with you. I don't believe the atheist position is tenable for that exact reason.

I think you are arguing that belief in a God is wrong, and I am arguing that disbelief in a God is wrong, and we have the same reasons for our arguments.

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

You are saying that logic arguments for God are flawed, and I agree. But I believe logic arguments against God are flawed as well. You say science can't prove just anything, and I agree with you. I don't believe the atheist position is tenable for that exact reason.

I think you are arguing that belief in a God is wrong, and I am arguing that disbelief in a God is wrong, and we have the same reasons for our arguments.

I'm arguing for justified belief being followed in a stricter fashion.
But with a lack of clarity on a concept. As well as little to no evidence for that vague concept. I can't find a reason to believe in God.
I therefore don't believe God exists.
I also don't believe that the FSM, china teapot, and fairies exist...

...I don't see how you could claim that position is similar.

[Fallen_Horse]

Hmm, I guess we are going in circles.

I want you to provide proof that God does not exist. Go.

[Johnboy74]

I want you to provide proof that God does not exist. Go.

Mr Horse, I get the feeling your clinging onto some kind of hope that there is a god out there? Maybe you have been in the grasp of religion in the past and it still has a stranglehold on you?

Is it not the case that time and scientific enquiry is gradually disproving every held religious belief about a god?

Is it not the case that religion is a man made concept, a human belief system born out of our need to understand the world in all its complexity before science as we know it was born? Both science and religion are manifestations of our need to find patterns in things.

Is it not the case that we can explain the processes of the origins of the universe right back to the big bang, without needing to resort to divine intervention?

Is it not the case that if their was a god, all powerful, all prevailing, an advanced entity, the question arises who created god?

I think the problem here are the words religious and atheist, they are two words in mortal battle each trying to destroy each other. Instead, If I say I am a rationalist, believing in empirical evidence for my personal understanding of my place in the universe, can you argue against that? My belief is in complexity from the breaking down of symmetry at atomic level over time, a universe created by chance, not the supernatural.

If we as me way well do destroy ourselves and this planet, would not god die with us? Do you think god exists without humanity?


-- sorry loads of typos I had to correct, typing too quickly

[Gelert]

Hmm, I guess we are going in circles.

I want you to provide proof that God does not exist. Go.

I would have said the burden of proof's on your shoulders, bub.

The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

Hmm, I guess we are going in circles.

I want you to provide proof that God does not exist. Go.

I'm not setting out to say that, I'm saying belief in God is not on the same level of justification as scientifically justified belief.

[Asleep on a sunbeam]

Oh shit, guys, I think we were wrong and Horse was right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0K ... re=related

[Johnboy74]

Oh shit, guys, I think we were wrong and Horse was right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0K ... re=related

Fuck me, that's some deep profound rational thinking