JackC

What evidence can you give that Odin doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that Thor doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that leprechauns doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that invisible pink unicorns doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that bigfoot doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that the medusa doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that flying teapots doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that the FSM doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that pegasus doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that dragons doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that kraken n doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that hotei doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that chupacabra doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that hathor doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that the holy snail doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that square circles doesn't exist? What evidence can you give that vampires don't exist? You are going to busy for a very very long time providing evidence for all the things that don't exist. That's why the burden of proof is set the way it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

It does if you want to hold a self-consistent, logical position. Infinite regression is a logical consequence of "everything must have a maker". It's rediculous to bolt on the ad-hoc idea that it doesn't apply to god just because that's the only way you can escape from the conundrum. So basically you just roll over and accept that your position makes no sense but that's ok because god isn't bound by the rules of the universe (defined as everything that exists anywhere). I find it amazing that people actually believe this stuff.

How do you get over the problem of infinite regression? Who designed the designer, and the designers designer... ad infinitum? If you say god is the uncaused cause, why can't the universe be uncaused? And finally, how does the god hypothesis offer any worthwhile explanation for anything? All it does is postulate what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and warns against even trying because you can't possibly understand. It's a hypothesis that revels in its own ignorance. What use is that?

Sorry, you're getting mixed up with Aboigenesis. Evolution and Abiogenesis are not the same thing. Evolution says nothing about how life started, it just takes "life exists" as a given and explains how it delelops from there. Abiogenesis explains how that life could have come to be in the first place but you don't necessarily have to believe in abiogenesis to buy into evolution. Do you think there is any chance you might learn what evolution actually is before you start criticising it?

So that would be a no then would it? You don't view the Bible with the same level of skepticism you do with science? Why does actual physical evidence warrant a higher degree of scepticism than 2000 year old hear-say? The Bible doesn't even come close to proving god exists but you are quite happy to not only believe that but organise your entire life around it. Why does the bible not require real, factual, in-your-hand evidence for you to believe it but museums full of evidence and thousands of scientists life work isn't enough for you to even consider natural selection?

Do you apply similar skepticism to the Bible? If not why not? If you do and are prepared to believe the Bible but not evolution, what makes the Bible more believable to you than peer-reviewed self-correcting scientific evidence?

Why don't you read the original work to see what they found and how they found it? It's all available to anyone who wants it. You can even trace all the techniques and theories back through to first principles if you so desire. You talk of appeals to authority and dismiss work you can actually check in favour of "godidit" which you can't. If that isn't the ultimate appeal to authority I don't know what is.

I completely agree. Unfortunately in the US and even in the UK, the creationists have succeeded in their straw man arguments and ID is being taught in some science classes despite the very definition of the word science. This is a crying shame because children will grow up thinking that superstition is valid science when it absolutely isn't. I worry that the education system that promotes this and the poor kids that suffer through it will become the laughing stock of the global science community. It's nothing short of child abuse.

It got ID taught in some science classes. What does that tell you?

Again, I do wish you folks would criticise evolutionary biology for what it actually is instead of dragging up the same old straw man arguments.

I do wish you folks would criticise evolutionary biology for what it actually is instead of dragging up the same old straw man arguments.

Considering the number of interpretions different people have about the meaning of the bible, it seems that the holy spirit isn't very consistent. I'll bet that if you asked a number of people for their interpretation of War and Peace you'd end up with a similar distribution. So what your holy spirit really boils down to is you read a bit, then let it slosh about in your unconcious for a while until a nugget you particularly like floats to the surface and bingo... that's what it means. Does the holy spirit help in understanding user manuals?

What's PETA?

I have to ask. How many animals have you personally interviewed to know that they don't fear death? Royd: Mr Duck, do you fear death? Duck: Well, that's an interesting question there Mr Royd. It's not that us ducks actually fear death, it's more like we have an unpleasant emotional response to the threat of high speed buck shot impacting ones arse when coming in to land after a hard days migrating.

Erm...no. The premise itself is logically flawed and the book isn't even self-consistent. You have to get down really low and squint to make any of it even remotely feasible. The overwhelming mountain of evidence suggests that the bible is nothing more than the superstitions of a bunch of bronze age nomads. Anyway, posing hypothetical questions can be quite informative. There are loads of things that could make me believe in god; none of them have ever happened but hypothetically there are things that could cause me to change my beliefs. Thought experiments are used frequently in loads of differnt disciplines, physics and philosophy in particular. You should try it sometime. Possibly, as with just about anything, but very unlikely. Quite enough for me to place my faith in it. Fuck me. Is that an admission that you may not have all the answers? Call guinness! In the UK it is a legal requirement for every adult male to commit 2 hours of every sunday to archery practice. I ignore that law every week and so does the vast majority of the UK population. No one has ever been prosecuted under that law for hundreds of years and no one ever will. We ignore these stupid laws because they dont matter. Not worshiping fictional characters is a victimless crime. Blasphemy is a victimless crime. Worshiping idols of fictional characters is a victimless crime. They too don't matter. Says who? You just admitted you could be wrong. When I die, the only place I expect to go to is the crematorium. If I'm proved wrong when I die, I'm more than ready to walk straight up to god and punch the sadistic fucker in the mouth.

Not quite sure what you're getting at but in my book, to have faith you don't need evidence or proof. Further, if you think there is a valid alternative to proposition X then you cannot have faith in the absolute truth of proposition X. That depends on how you define faith and belief. I would say that to know requires proof, to believe requires evidence and to have faith requires neither. I could have faith that X exists and that would be blind in as much as you have no reason to believe but you still do but that would not necessarily imply submission. For example, I could beleive that the Bible really is the word of god and still not take jesus as my new best mate. If I had evidence that X exists then I no longer need faith and that would not be blind (partially sighted perhaps but not blind) Again that does not necessarily imply submission. So are you right about me? If you have faith in X being true, then you don't think X could be false. If you question X and think it might be false, then you don't have faith in X being true. Seems fairly straight forward to me. The position you seem to call faith and beleif, I'd call not knowing even though you might err to one side or the other. Internal thought and feelings alone are not enough. Without some external and objective conformation that whatever position you take is correct then "I don't know" is still an acceptable state to be in.

You can't. The point is not whether I can actually produce the evidence, the point is that no level of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You are so convinced by your book, that anything contrary to what it says has to be a misinterpretation of the text or a fraud or the work of the devil or some other ad-hoc justification you can concoct. Your list of excuses contains every concievable permutation except one - the simplest of all - that the bible could be incorrect. That one you wont even consider, ever, under any circumstances, absolutely not possible, period. Obviously I failed, but only the ones that don't matter. Of course I think your test is nothing more than superstitious gibberish anyway so I don't care either way. But dude, you really need to do better than number 17 if you want me to buy into your god spam.

What justification does he have for believing that he has not been decieving himself of that he has not attributed the wrong cause to whatever feeling caused him to think this way? To not even be open to the possibility of being incorrect is a dangerous place to be in my opinion.

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass-a-hoppin (maybe it will evolve some eventually). Whatcha got? Even some of our most brilliant scientists can't discount the possibility. I have no idea what that lot means but I suggest you read up on what a scientific theory actually is and why scientists provide caveats even to the best of them. Regarding evolution, there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that evolution and natural selection is the way life has developed on this earth. You can watch evolution at work in the lab. As a scientific theory, natural selection is the absolute best theory we have. You can read about it in The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, here's the complete book so you don't even have to buy it. Could the theory be wrong? Of course it could but even if it is, it still does amazingly well at explaining the diversity of life on this planet. But apparently this mountain of evidence is not good enough for you. Instead you are choose to believe a copy of a translation of a 2000 year old chinese whisper that might have been told about a bloke who might have existed and might have been the son of god if god even exists (for which there is no evidence at all). But none of that is my point. My point is that even if I could prove that god is fictional so that no sane, rational, logical thinking person could ever doubt me, you'd still cling on to your godidit beliefs. That just seems so mind bogglingly off the scale nutty that I just can't beleive anyone could actually feel that way. Yet apparently you do and I have absolutely no idea why you would want to do that.

My wife tells me that... Sometimes... Well at least you have a sense of humour about it. But seriously, even if I could provide proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that god was fictional, you'd still beleive the superstitions of a bunch of bronze age nomads over your own eyes? Surely you can't be serious? Can people really have their minds so completely welded shut by that book of yours? I can't even imagine why anyone would want to do that. Why would you do that?

My belief is secure. It is based not only on faith but personal experience. You have no evidence that could shake it. So, the answer to your question is no. Wow. No evidence at all, not even in principle. I wish I could think of a nicer way of saying it but it would be a waste of time for anyone to try to tell you anything then.

Why? is it not true? I once asked you if there was any evidence, even in principle, that could make you change your mind about the truth of the bible. You could answer that question for me if you want to.

If you believe what the bible says it true, the bar has been set impossibly high by that loving god of yours. So high that none of his beloved creations can ever pass. The only way out is to accept the whole sin guilt trip and sell your soul to jesus. But then you run the risk of not understanding your instructions properly, or picking the wrong religious sect or any of the other millions of pitfalls god has set up to catch you out so he can throw you into eternal hell fire. Luckily, the whole problem vanishes instantly when you realise that god is fictional. Occam's Razor strikes again.

To me that's like saying "I'm only trying to tell you that square circles exist". Erm... no. By definition, the square circle is an oxymoron. Just like square circles, god and satan and heaven and hell are are all equally absurd. The more frantically you wave your hands trying to get me to slow down, the less likely I am to stop. Your motives may be good, but I've heard the message before and it's gibberish. So why do atheists bark equally loudly? For me, it's the fact that what the religious are saying makes no sense. If I hear something that is obviously bullshit, I can't help myself not to call it as I see it. Plus, it's occasionally amusing to poke a few religious types to see what bizzare and outrageous stuff falls out. It's quite addictive in a slighly masochistic way.

So you're saying I'm destined for hell as an infidel because of Gods incompetance in the PR department? Pure genius.