Now take that same simple logic and apply it to god(s). We have scoured the visible universe for it and found nothing, and everything that supposedly happens because of it can be attributed to man and/or nature.
Which branch of science concerns itself with proving the non-existence of magical & mythical creatures, including and perhaps especially god? Just curious.
Really?
What’s your position on the existence of Batman?
Pretty sure Mr. Destroi goes through his days and nights behaving the way he would if he were as certain as Dawkins of the non-existence of a deity.* He probably only goes into militant agnostic mode when he’s confronted with a hard atheist he can try to shame with a charge of dogmatism.
*I suspect there are quite a few Monday-Saturday Evengelicals about whom the same thing could be said. :rolleyes:
That’s cutting the common conception of “God” a lot of slack, in my opinion. Even rolling all of those other mythical creatures into one large MegaMyth, you don’t get 1/1000 of the powers and abilities claimed by the followers of “God”. This creature is the culmination of thousands of years of “My God is bigger than your God!!”.
You don’t understand that exactly the same kind of argument can be made for the non-existence of god. It’s because you clearly understand nothing about science, or the nature or scientific proof. You think you do, but you obviously don’t. Yet you think you know more about science than an actual scientist does, and disregard what I tell you about it. This is ignorance at its ignorantest.
Science seeks to reason from first principles and from evidence. There is no reason to postulate the existence of a god or god to explain the existence of the universe, or of any phenomena that we have knowledge of. (There is also no reason to postulate the existence of Santa Claus to account for the appearance of gifts under the tree on Christmas morning). We may not understand how the universe came to be, or certain things about it, but the hypothesis that it was created by a god or gods is unnecessary. Besides that, the characteristics attributed to most versions of god or gods are incompatible with what we know about the universe.
In order for science to credit that something exists, there must either be evidence for it, or a strong theoretical reason that it should exist. Absent that, science concludes that it doesn’t exist.
“It is inconclusive until there is proof that favors my position”-There’s intellectual honesty for ya.
People do theology experiments all the time, and religions have made tons of predictions. They don’t work, and unlike science most of them don’t reject a hypothesis refuted by experimentation.
It would be easy to prove the existence of God. All God has to do is show up and do tricks, just like in Exodus. Any god worth the name could prove his existence to the level that we can prove the existence of Paris. That he doesn’t do so is just more evidence for his nonexistence.
And we prove that a tri-omni god, which is logically inconsistent, doesn’t exist. The real God who created the universe for the benefit of a race living around a star in a Galaxy 4 billion ly from us, not so much.
Well, the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.
Alright genius, point by point.
“So, A guess.” Sure but a guess (don’t forget my “guess” is that there may or may not be" with a better foundation in reason than your certainty. Yes I guess there may or may not be a god. Congrats! You made me admit what I’ve said all along. Here, have a fucking milkbone.
“Oh, what proof was that? There is evidence that makes it unlikely, and plenty of reason to think that it doesn’t exist, but there is no proof that it didn’t.”
I guess a lack of megafauna on any sonographic surveys of Loch Ness, coupled by a lack of any sort of fossil evidence that suggests that such mega fauna ever existed in Loch Ness.
On top of that I believe that the original photo was declared fraudulent by the people that perpetrated the hoax.
There is no way that a whale sized creature exists in Loch Ness at present. Simple. Negative evidence. If I say there is a giant pillar at 56’ north and 132’ east (made up coordinates) and you go to those coordinates and there is a fucking prairie without pillar that is pretty conclusive negative evidence for the existence of a pillar.
“Please cite this claim.” No, cite a refutation. You say I’m wrong - prove it. Isn’t that what you are saying to me? And a refutation should be both easy and satisfying.
And just to be clear you fucking wonder-slug my position is that WE DO NOT AND CANNOT KNOW AT PRESENT. Please present concrete evidence that we DO know at present. Should be easy enough for one who has full knowledge of the inscrutable.
“That’s not the history of science at all. The history of science is to be always seeking a better explanation. To see the gaps in our knowledge and to try to fill them.”
Really? How many examples would you like of science staring clear and plain evidence in the face and discounting it in favour of prevailing dogma? I’ve already given you germ theory. How about the effects of sugar - which science knew long ago was terrible for you but they chose to step back owing to pressure from the sugar lobby?
“Science” is not now, nor has it ever been infallible. Science is a progress.
"Your complete and utter lack of understanding of science and of history does little to lend your argument any credibility.
Back it up fuck boy. Where have I demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science and history? What have I said that is provably false? Come on nutless, you say something like that I expect you have evidence?
“Well, you have more faith in science than most atheists. I would not say that science will ever be able to prove one way or the other. You think that that knowledge is right around the corner.”
I have no idea what you’re on about here. I have more “faith” in science than most atheists? Most atheist have nothing but faith in science you twat. That’s the only faith they have and that is what I’ve been saying all along. Were you born this fucked or did it take practise?
“Everything about theology is shit that has been trodden over since we could speak.”
Yeah… and? Who is arguing theology? I say that there may or may not be a god and it is arrogance to assume we know one way or the other. I’m not sure where theology comes into it. Do try to keep up.
“Science is different. While there is no new information to be had to improve the results of your religion, science has continually explored and learned. The Pharaoh was not aware of the extent of the world, much less that of the solar system or the universe. That is stuff that science has uncovered, not theology.”
Ummmmkay… to start with, what, praytell, is my religion? To the best of my knowledge I lack a religion. But please do tell me so I can start adhering to it. I’d truly hate to piss off a god I don’t actually believe in. Perhaps the wrong mammal is at the end of your leash.
And now you are suggesting that the Egyptians lack knowledge of astronomy? And you say that as a response to my using a MYTH as analogy? Yup, leash is in the wrong hands cur.
Do you not see how you sound just as evangelical as any other zealot?
“There is nothing at all controversial about whether or not a god exists. If you want to believe in a god, go for it, doesn’t bother me in the slightest.”
Please show me anywhere that I have said that there is definitely a god. Otherwise this is your standard level of fuckwittery,
“It is when you start saying that you know not only that god exists, but what god is, that god speaks to you, and that god is telling you to tell other people how to live their lives that stirs the controversy.When someone claims that “God hates fags”, for instance, they are not just making an ephemeral claim, they are making a statement that this must be, this is decreed by a power on high. That is when they really need to be able to come up with evidence that their stories aren’t just make-believe.”
Again, where did I say anything that would render this bit relevant? Did I say I believe in a god? Nope. Did I insist that there must be a higher being? Nope. So what you are doing is slavering on the keyboard and fellating yourself for your own perceived brilliance.
I’ve not said what you claim I have and I don’t adhere to the belief system that you ascribe to me.
And to bring the Westboro contingent (of a religion I do not belong to) and use that to bolster your putative point is so stupid that I’m curious if your a beneficiary of CTE.
So well done! You have conclusively shown that atheists like you (I’ll not tar them all because of one fucking taint stain) are utterly reasonable people who are willing to consider the possibility that science has not yet discovered all that there is to discover.
Good on ya!!!
Ya fuck.
Cripes, you’re an idiot.
And you, are clearly, a shinning light.
So I ask you what, precisely is wrong about the proposition that since we cannot, at present, know for a certainty it is best not to assert certainty?
I fail to see the idiocy of that proposition.
If you could just get **Joe Pesci **to read that rant, it would be awesome.
Sure if that’s how you want to frame it. I frame it as both sides are evangelical and dogmatic in their positions and would likely benefit from perspective. Tell me, do you feel superior to everyone who disagrees with you? I don’t.
Get fucked retard
I express my feeling of superiority by making oblique cultural references.
If you postulate a Creator God, why would you choose such a relative upstart as JHVH aka El Shaddai aka El? (The cool thing being that they have no clue what ‘Shaddai’ means.)
Genesis 17:1: “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am El Shaddai; walk before me, and be thou perfect.”
Exodus 6:2–3: “I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Ēl Shaddāi, but was not known to them by my name, YHVH.”
Clearly derived from earlier Semitic gods.
Go a bit further back in Semitic and Sumerian gods and you reach Anu.
*In Mesopotamian religion, Anu was the personification of the sky, the utmost power, the supreme God, the one “who contains the entire universe”. He was identified with the north ecliptic pole centered in Draco. His name meant the “One on High”, and together with his sons Enlil and Enki (Ellil and Ea in Akkadian), he formed a triune conception of the divine, in which Anu represented a “transcendental” obscurity, Enlil the “transcendent” and Enki the “immanent” aspect of the divine.
*
Gosh, notice a Holy Trinity there too? Same epithets?
Well done Chuck! You managed to say exactly the same thing you did before except with cartoons! Damn I wish I could give you a sticker.
I ask again, do you typically feel superior to those you disagree with? I don’t, but YMMV.
I’m El Shaddai, yes I’m the real Shaddai
All you other El Shaddai are just false idolii
So before the real El Shadaii, please kneel down
Please kneel down
Please kneel down
No, that’s more Barney Fife that Joe Pesci. Put a little bass in your voice and try it again.