Dear Atheists..

[JASR]

Not sure you've quite grasped the difficulty in the concept of causality. God is not contingent, he is the Prime Mover.

Not sure you’ve quite grasped the easyness in the concept of proof. Your ’god’ is not real. You offer no proof that there isn’t multiple gods running the show, you just blindly state there is one. You offer no proof that your ‘god’ is not a woman or a hermaphrodite, other than (I’ll anticipate you here) quoting a human created fantasy book.

So, you have said athiests need to prove ‘god’ exists, and are countered by ‘you can’t prove a negative’, and that’s where it ends usually. But a slightly different question to ask you on the same lines is:
What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?

Without recourse to a human made fantasy book, you can’t.

Pure fantasy based on indoctrination and control.

 

[Mr Blue Moon]

“I’ll be glad when the fucking international break is over” love from God

 

[johnny crossan]

Not sure you’ve quite grasped the easyness in the concept of proof. Your ’god’ is not real. You offer no proof that there isn’t multiple gods running the show, you just blindly state there is one. You offer no proof that your ‘god’ is not a woman or a hermaphrodite, other than (I’ll anticipate you here) quoting a human created fantasy book.

So, you have said athiests need to prove ‘god’ exists, and are countered by ‘you can’t prove a negative’, and that’s where it ends usually. But a slightly different question to ask you on the same lines is:
What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?

Without recourse to a human made fantasy book, you can’t.

Pure fantasy based on indoctrination and control.

Never said any of that

deary me, its an argument not proof

An argument is a necessary part of a proof.

 

[ballbag]

Never said any of that

An argument is a necessary part of a proof.

Evidence is a necessary part of proof.

 

[fulabeer]

 

[tonea2003]

Never said any of that

An argument is a necessary part of a proof.

conclusive evidence or as our club says irrefutable evidence

 

[JASR]

Never said any of that

An argument is a necessary part of a proof.

Stop playing religious dodgeball with the question
‘ What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?‘

 

[Irwell]

Given how much he's avoiding all the questions here, I refer back to what I said earlier.

I don't understand how religion has spread as far around the world as it has. Surely any rational person applies Hitchens's razor and the Sagan standard as part of their evaluation when the concept of a god is raised?

 

[Blue Maverick]

My daughter just started high school in a CofE school, her first homework is RE, bloody hell the shite she is learning, really thise lessons could be best served with something useful. I’ve told her just do what you need to but other stuff has priority, this stuff should be outlawed now we are so called educated humans in the 21st century still adhering to made up nonsense from thousands of years ago, might as well teach them the tooth fairy still exists for fucks sake.

 

[johnny crossan]

Evidence is a necessary part of proof.

Yes, the question is what you count as evidence of course and what you consider to be proof.

Stop playing religious dodgeball with the question
‘ What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?‘

Bizarre expressions like the above aside I'm not playing anything. As Anthony Kenny succinctly put it "Many different definitions may be offered of the word 'God'. Given this fact, atheism makes a much stronger claim than theism does. The atheist says that no matter what definition you choose, 'God exists' is always false. The theist only claims that there is some definition which will make 'God exists' true,"

 

[Elbow beards]

It's pointless arguing with religious people, they can never answer a straight question because it's impossible to provide evidence of the nonsense they believe, so they witter on incoherently, trying to sound learned and intelligent, making themselves sound more like Donald Trump.

 

[johnny crossan]

I don't understand how religion has spread as far around the world as it has. Surely any rational person applies Hitchens's razor and the Sagan standard as part of their evaluation when the concept of a god is raised?"

Given how much he's avoiding all the questions here, I refer back to what I said earlier.

The universe is undoubtedly an extraordinary place full of extraordinary evidence but is Hitchens' razor an electric version of Occams?

 

[Irwell]

The universe is undoubtedly an extraordinary place full of extraordinary evidence but is Hitchens' razor an electric version of Occams?

Hitchens's razor is "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". The Sagan standard is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Essentially between the two, the burden of proof is on you and you're going to need some remarkable evidence to justify supernatural claims.

 

[johnny crossan]

It's pointless arguing with religious people, they can never answer a straight question because it's impossible to provide evidence of the nonsense they believe, so they witter on incoherently, trying to sound learned and intelligent, making themselves sound more like Donald Trump.

Exactly so, if those asking these 'straight' questions have already made their minds up there's no possible answer they like but at least nobody can accuse you lot of trying to sound learned or intelligent. In fact it seems you've been taking lessons from Donald on incoherence too ;-)

Anyway here's a question for you: "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Get your gums around that.

 

[johnny crossan]

Hitchens's razor is "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". The Sagan standard is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Essentially between the two, the burden of proof is on you and you're going to need some remarkable evidence to justify supernatural claims.

You do realise you are making 'supernatural' claims too?

 

[Irwell]

Anyway here's a question for you: "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Get your gums around that.

My first question would be to ask on what basis do you believe that the default position is "nothing", why is the default position not that things just exist?

My second, plus a couple of follow-ups, would be to ask if the default position for some reason has to be "nothing" and there has to be a creator to create the "something", where did the creator come from? Was there a creator of the creator? Why can "something" not just exist, but "creator" can?

You brought Occam's razor up yourself earlier, so I'll bring it back up with regard to the second question.

 

[johnny crossan]

My daughter just started high school in a CofE school, her first homework is RE, bloody hell the shite she is learning, really thise lessons could be best served with something useful. I’ve told her just do what you need to but other stuff has priority, this stuff should be outlawed now we are so called educated humans in the 21st century still adhering to made up nonsense from thousands of years ago, might as well teach them the tooth fairy still exists for fucks sake.

Hope she's smarter than her dad then, otherwise there's trouble ahead. I sometimes despair at the ignorance and prejudice on here. Incredibly sad and dangerous.

 

[Irwell]

You do realise you are making 'supernatural' claims too?

Absolutely not, my opinion is that there is no requirement for anything to have ever been created.

 

[talkativesprout]

Hitchens's razor is "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". The Sagan standard is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Essentially between the two, the burden of proof is on you and you're going to need some remarkable evidence to justify supernatural claims.

My mum bought my dad a razor from Hitchen's catalogue return shop in A-U-L circa 1984, he still has herpes and swears it was from using a second hand personal hygiene tool. My mum suggested he had caught it through other means, he dismissed her claims since she had no evidence

 

[johnny crossan]

My first question would be to ask on what basis to you believe that the default position is "nothing", why is the default position not that things just exist?

My second, plus a couple of follow-ups, would be to ask if the default position for some reason has to be "nothing" and there has to be a creator to create the "something", where did the creator come from? Was there a creator of the creator? Why can "something" not just exist, but "creator" can?

You brought Occam's razor up yourself earlier, so I'll bring it back up with regard to the second question.

There is undeniably something and I prefer it to be meaningful rather than just a brute fact. The preference of most people I suggest