It’s impossible to say that God does not exist.
But it’s possible to say that, if he/she/it does exist then he/she/it is a bit err… eccentric to say the least…
God made man in his own image and placed him on the third planet out from a nondescript star in a bog standard galaxy…
What’s the point of the rest of the universe?
It’s the equivalent of George Bush spending his entire life nurturing a grain of sand from Bognor Regis…
We don’t use them here. You might want to scroll down the list and read some of the multitudes of threads we have had on atheism vs. theism.
And you will get a lot more respect if you stick up for your own views instead of just repeating what other people have said. You’ve done this in four threads now.
Nice post,** Zagadka**.
Ahh yes, God’s Plan! He lets you live because he “loves” mankind too much to kill his most wayward children, hmm, never heard of hell have you. Some love.
Theres no such thing as “Religion”, only a collection of practices which for some reason or other share a name.
As far as I can make out this chap makes countless assumptions, sweeping generalisations, and inconsistent reasoning in his attack on a non-existent universal:
(my annotation.)
This excerpt must be celebrated as it contains 2 “facts” (A and B), 1 sweeping generalisation ©, and one faulty bit of logic leading to the conclusion (D).
Even if A, B and C were true (which of course it isn’t), the other possibility, that they contain some truth in agreement with each other, as well as some contradictions is not given any consideration.
Perhaps “12 indisputable arguments” on the falsity of rehashing old arguments incompetently to sell books would be more appropriate.
I AM an atheist college student, and even I think these arguments are pretty lame.
I find Reason 8 particularly annoying at the moment - that’s the one that asserts that humanity can’t be special, stuck as we are out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy. Anyone who claims to be such a proponent of science really ought to be open to the idea that things that are small and not centrally located can still be extremely important. I wonder what he thinks of electrons.
This particular argument against religion is very unconvincing, but I highly suggest that you keep reading the SDMB, and let it help you figure out what you believe.
This board has converted me from an agnostic to an atheist, btw… but only by better defining the terms. If you buy the “12 Indisputable Arguments” against religion, you are an atheist, not an agnostic:
http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html
“Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible.”
http://skepdic.com/atheism.html
“Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God.”
That definition is really what some call a “hard atheist” or “strong atheist.” I’m personally a “soft atheist,” meaning I see no more reason to believe in God than to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, and therefore have stopped worrying about the issue. If I see evidence of God’s existance, I might change my stance… but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Isn’t one of the conditions of life that it must exist in the outer reaches of he galaxy? I would imagine the radiation levels of the inner galaxy would prevent any life from forming.
Are you kidding me? Is this some kind of joke? This guy is insane. He hates religion and Jews. Might as well ask somebody to refute Ted Jesus Christ God or the Timecube. The proper response to this guy is to sit back and laugh.
Hey! Hey! Sounds like someone’s been educated stupid.
Gene Ray wisest human!
Actually the whole “everyone believed the earth was flat” thing isn’t true either.
Religion claims to be absolute about some things, depending on which belief system you’re talking about. Many religions do not claim to know all about the physical world (or the spiritual for that matter), and most Christians never have either. The ones that do get all the press. The Bible gives very little space to matters of how the earth came to be, and a whole lot of space to how we should treat one another. Many have taken this to mean that scripture is not really in the business of teaching science.
And ‘science,’ when actual people get involved, is never as unemotional, objective and quick to change as we like to think; people get attached to their theories and don’t want to accept new ideas in the scientific realm as well. That’s just human nature.
If that is so, how come your OP title claims there are “indisputable” arguments for the falsity of religion?
Ya got some more reading to do. These “indisputable” arguments are weak… about as solid as the “evidence” that the creationists claim “disproves evolution”.
Right; I don’t disagree. I was just using Aquinas as an example of someone who “applied logic to religion.”
But, logically, can you “start at ground zero”? Don’t you have to have some premises to begin drawing conclusions from? Descartes tried starting from nothing, and reasoned that he, at least, existed (“I think therefore I am”); and if I remember correctly he thought he managed to prove the existence of God, though I don’t think anyone accepts his proof.
John Bryant’s writining displays the usual signs of the crank
[ul]
[li]Excessive “use” of “quotation” marks that makes “no” sense[/li][li]Coining neologisms[/li][li] Claiming unique insights that the vulgar mob cannot understand[/li][li]Claiming persecution by the authorities in his field[/li][/ul]
Science Girl would do well to turn on her Bullshit Meter so that she knows not to quote nutcases to bolster her arguments. I’m certainly no friend to theism, but the arguments cited are rubbish for the reason previously enumerated by other posters.
One cannot disprove the existence of gods in themselves, and as long as the religious confine themselves to questions of spirituality and morals, their faith is unassailable. It’s when they regard their religious texts as science books that they get into trouble.
Wrong. Roman Catholics believe that God reveals himself throughout the narrative of history, which includes today and the future. Link
The religious development of Japan in history is often used as an example of the way religion grows and changes,and is pretty much okay with it. Take the example of Shinto:
Seriously, Science Girl, take a class on comparative religions while you’re at school. You’d be a great addition to the class, and you’d be a lot better informed than you would just by reading “the most controversial author in the world.”
Moderator’s Note: Science Girl, please see this post.
I disagree with your second statement there (and probably your first as well–some gods are sufficiently well-defined that their existence can be disproven; many can be disproven to the same degree we regard other absurd claims as disproven, even if we can’t disprove them in a strict, logical sense). For example, the views of those who, based on their religious faith, proclaim that homosexual acts are inherently immoral are not unassailable, and should be challenged.
I don’t know, it sounds like a loving God to me. I mean, given freewill to chose how to live here and now, as well as for eternity…pretty sweet deal!
Sarcasm aside, aren’t both sides of the argument just working hypothosese?
I guess we’ll all know the Truth soon enough. 
Actually, science as an entity is unemotional. But people often don’t like the results of what science discovers and then get emotional.
Funny. Religion, as an entity, of course, is also unemotional. But people often don’t like the results of what religion means, and then get emotional.
Religion is VERY emotional, have you not read the Bible? It’s filled with emotion. And it is said to be absolute. The Bible does not say “well, this is what God says right now, but maybe he can be proven wrong.” Only science says that.