God is the worlds most prolific Abortionist

[Fonz]

It demonstrates the possibility of the existence of God.

How? Because everything that exists must have a cause? It is amazing how many people find this argument compelling.

If God created the universe, what created God?

You don't have to accept it as your own; you just have to acknowledge the possibility and let other people do as they will until actual empirical evidence to the contrary pops up.

I will not acknowledge ludicrous claims about the universe. Whats the intellectual justification for tolerating the stupid beliefs that people hold?

And since you can't prove things one way or the other, isn't a better idea to just let people have their beliefs? Think of religious beliefs as being rather far-fetched theories. No way to prove them wrong. Probably not right either, but you just can't offer them proof that they're wrong. So leave them to it until you can.

ONce again, its not my job to disprove. Its their job to prove. If they can't prove it, then why should they be taken seriously. Thats how things work.

Making ludicrous statements about the nature of the universe does not deserve anyones respect.

 

[Dave]

How? Because everything that exists must have a cause? It is amazing how many people find this argument compelling.

If God created the universe, what created God?

I will not acknowledge ludicrous claims about the universe. Whats the intellectual justification for tolerating the stupid beliefs that people hold?

ONce again, its not my job to disprove. Its their job to prove. If they can't prove it, then why should they be taken seriously. Thats how things work.

Making ludicrous statements about the nature of the universe does not deserve anyones respect.

I can understand why and agnostic would make the statement that he has nothing to prove, since an agnostic is admitting that he does not know the answers about God and religion. You, on the other hand, as an atheist, claim to know that there is no God. You are making claims that need to be backed up by evidence. If there is no God, prove it by showing what is the truth. I have shown you statistical scientific evidence for my beliefs. Show me some evidence for yours. Saying that something is silly does not constitute a valid argument.

 

[vyo476]

It must really be nice to sit and say "I don't have to prove my point but you have to prove yours."

 

[Fonz]

I can understand why and agnostic would make the statement that he has nothing to prove, since an agnostic is admitting that he does not know the answers about God and religion. You, on the other hand, as an atheist, claim to know that there is no God. You are making claims that need to be backed up by evidence. If there is no God, prove it by showing what is the truth.

You rather frequently, ignore the plain meaning of words. Creating Strawmen is rather intellectually dishonest of you, don't you think Dave?

Once again, I did not say that I "know" that there is no God. I do know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God, and that you have provided absolutely ZERO evidence to back up the claim that there is a God.

Since you are making the claim that there is a God, the Burden of proof lies on you to prove it.

I have shown you statistical scientific evidence for my beliefs. Show me some evidence for yours. Saying that something is silly does not constitute a valid argument.

Where is this statistical scientific evidence? Please re-post it or perhaps link it for me.

What exactly do I need to provide evidence of?

 

[Fonz]

It must really be nice to sit and say "I don't have to prove my point but you have to prove yours."

I trust that the actual attentive readers will notice where my words are being misconstrued.

 

[Dave]

This just sums it up, but I can come up with more links if you really think its necessary.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

 

[Fonz]

This just sums it up, but I can come up with more links if you really think its necessary.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

Wow...excuse me while I laugh out loud for a few minutes first.

ok, i've controlled myself.

said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing,

You know Dave, I'm not a statistician, so maybe you can explain to me how 'god' automatically has a 50/50 chance of existing?

Don't ya think that this guys science might be just a little flawed? maybe?

The Rogue Semiotician punctures the balloon with characteristic acuity:

The calculation starts with an assumption that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence. In terms of the Bayes calculation, this means that there is a one in two chance that God "will happen".

This, I'm afraid, is the category mistake. God is not a contingent event. God is, depending on your viewpoint, a necessary and permanent fixture, or a phantasm. In other words, God is either necessary or impossible. The only contingent is the amount of certainty you, as an individual, have in either direction.
​

The real flaw in that article is the highly subjective nature of the decisions the guy made assigning what is good/evil and weighting things up.

I am simply amazed that the complete lunacy this guy is sprouting hasn't been explained completely out in the article, which instead gives this ridiculousness a flavor of seriousness, when it actually is utter crap.

Please Dave, if the rest of your 'statistical evidence' is as much crap as that one is, then don't even bother wasting my time.

 

[Fonz]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't, q.e.d."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

[Dave]

From a scientific standpoint, everything starts out with a 50/50 chance, so if you want to make a scientific study, that is where one would naturally begin. Starting anywhere else would be beginning with a bias. All I was trying to point out is that statisticly, it is much more likely that God exists, than not existing. If you have a problem with the subjectivity of what is good and evil, thats fine. Try this one.

http://www.halozone.com/appologetics/god_big_bang.shtml

I would just like to add that Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies has been quoted as saying:
"All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are....The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us."

Likewise, British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle comments:
"I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents."

These are educated professional people operating on evidence they have seen in their studies, not some crazy crackpots. How do you dismiss the belief of God expressed by Stephen Hawking, Sir Isaac Newton, and many of the most important scientific minds in human history?

 

[vyo476]

Something just occurred to me. Atheism is just another religion.

Atheists believe there is no God. There is no proof that there is no God, but that is what they believe. They tote this belief and throw it in the face of those who do believe in God, unilaterally putting all the burden of proof on the opposition and expecting none of it in return. Their beliefs are based on incomplete data: the idea that other religions are foolish and unsubstantiated, irregardless of the fact that the atheist position itself is unsubstantiated.

Fonz claims that he does not "know" that there is no God. He does, allegedly, know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God.

I would bet that the people of the local congregation might take some offense to that, but then, I doubt Fonz would much care; even though these Christians have never blown anyone up or acted in a violent manner at all, according to him their beliefs are just a mask for those who do so. They are a small, out-of-the-way church in New Hampshire where a group of people who rarely leave this state go to pray once every Sunday, and yet their actions, which give them a sense of balance and help them to go about their daily lives as productive members of our nation's economy, are aiding and abetting terrorists, crusaders, and jihadists. There is no proof of this; it is simply what Fonz believes.

Interesting, no?

 

[Dave]

vyo476, thank you for being a voice of reason.

 

[9sublime]

The religious people on here seem to have come to the conclusion that there is a god, because something kickstarted the universe.

I admit, there could be a higher being. But how do you know you've picked the right one? I'm agnostic, but at the same time anti - religion. People just make up a God, and people follow. Theres no proof that any of the world religions are definetly right and they are all just as convinced as each other.

If you say atheism is impossible because we just don't know, then your grounds on belief are pretty poor as well because you don't know whats out there scientifically after death.

If you reject atheism, you have to reject religion too and be agnostic.

 

[Fonz]

From a scientific standpoint, everything starts out with a 50/50 chance, so if you want to make a scientific study, that is where one would naturally begin. Starting anywhere else would be beginning with a bias.

that is an incredibly ludicrous statement. So your saying that Michael Jackson has a 50/50 shot at becoming President of the US in 2008?

All I was trying to point out is that statisticly, it is much more likely that God exists, than not existing.

Dave, is this another example of your intellectual sophistry?

If you have a problem with the subjectivity of what is good and evil, thats fine. Try this one.

http://www.halozone.com/appologetics/god_big_bang.shtml

I would just like to add that Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies has been quoted as saying:
"All the evidence so far indicates that many complex structures depend most delicately on the existing form of these laws. It is tempting to believe, therefore, that a complex universe will emerge only if the laws of physics are very close to what they are....The laws, which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously, seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us."

Likewise, British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle comments:
"I do not believe that any scientist who examines the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents."

First of all, I hope you realize that citing such good company doesn't amount to an argument. This is called an Appeal to Authority, logical fallacy. But I will address it nonetheless.

First of all, Hoyle, was an Athiest. Secondly, neither one of these people are saying that they know a Personal God is out their. Just because they see some evidence of some sort of guiding hand does not mean they believe in God. Why is the only thing that could have given rise to the universe a personal God? Even if I agree with you that our universe simply had to be designed by a designer, this would not mean that this designer is the God of Abraham, or that He approves of Judaism or Christianity. If intelligently designed, our universe could be running as a simulation on an alien supercomputer. Or any one of a number other possibilities.

Thirdly, Intelligent people can have stupid ideas.

I would say that the reason that science (especially in America) doesn’t do a better job of immunizing its practitioners against religious faith is because (as I've been saying) it is taboo to seriously challenge a person’s religious faith in our society. I wonder what you make of the fact that there are Hindu scientists who believe in a plurality of gods. Does this suggest to you that polytheism has been borne out by dispassionate scientific research?

There is also little question that exposure to scientific education reduces the likelihood that a person will believe in God.

Tell me why it is more reasonable to believe in your version of God than in Zeus?

These are educated professional people operating on evidence they have seen in their studies, not some crazy crackpots. How do you dismiss the belief of God expressed by Stephen Hawking, Sir Isaac Newton, and many of the most important scientific minds in human history?

First of all,Stephen Hawking does not believe in a Personal God. And has even argued against the creator argument in his books. So I'm not really sure where your getting that idea from. Perhaps taken from out of context quotes or something.

Furthermore the fact that intelligent people believe in God does not indicate that there are good reasons to believe in God. Their faith is no doubt propped up by the same terrible arguments that you use to defend your faith.

And you, however would do well to observe that there is an enormous difference between (1) acquiring a picture of the world through dispassionate, scientific study, and (2) acquiring it through emotionality and wishful thinking, then looking to see if can survive contact with science.

 

[Fonz]

Something just occurred to me. Atheism is just another religion.

Atheists believe there is no God. There is no proof that there is no God, but that is what they believe. They tote this belief and throw it in the face of those who do believe in God, unilaterally putting all the burden of proof on the opposition and expecting none of it in return. Their beliefs are based on incomplete data: the idea that other religions are foolish and unsubstantiated, irregardless of the fact that the atheist position itself is unsubstantiated.

Fonz claims that he does not "know" that there is no God. He does, allegedly, know that there are no good reasons to believe in a personal God.

I would bet that the people of the local congregation might take some offense to that, but then, I doubt Fonz would much care; even though these Christians have never blown anyone up or acted in a violent manner at all, according to him their beliefs are just a mask for those who do so. They are a small, out-of-the-way church in New Hampshire where a group of people who rarely leave this state go to pray once every Sunday, and yet their actions, which give them a sense of balance and help them to go about their daily lives as productive members of our nation's economy, are aiding and abetting terrorists, crusaders, and jihadists. There is no proof of this; it is simply what Fonz believes.

Interesting, no?

Its somewhat annoying, having to repeat myself over and over again to defend myself from these baseless accusations your making. You know nothing of science or philosophy.

Furthermore the atheist you have created, once again, is an utter strawman.

 

[palerider]

I will not. I'm openly intolerant of religion. There is no difference between a Muslim flying a plane into a building because he thinks he'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and a catholic believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a Virgin.

Its the same irrationality and ignorance. I don't see religion or faith any differently than I see any other issue. You would rightly so, ridicule anyone that told you the Earth was flat, religious beliefs are just as irrational and just as unjustifiable. Neither position deserves any respect.

This is what you end up with when you are a relativist. You see no difference between a muslim flying a plane into an occupied building killing thousands, and an old lady kneeling in church on saturday evening saying hail marys?

Do you see any differece between muslims killing in the name of their religion and the same old lady working in a soup kitchen feeding the homeless in the name of hers?