Re: What's the point of proving or disproving the existence of God?
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=Mostly because people think they have the right answer and will have spent countless hours thinking to themselves, trying to prove why they feel God does or doesn't exist.
I totally get that some people think religion is bogus and some don't, but why make a point to prove or disprove the existence of God?
Therefore when such time is put into something people often don't like to have their "well-informed" opinions talked about in any kind of contradicting light.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavWell, gravity hasn't been proven, it's just a theory, but even so...
OK...there goes gravity.
1. Things fall down to the earth
2. There must be some sort of force to pull these down
3. No other explanation of why things fall to the earth
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavYes it does matter, as that shatters the theory.
Doesn't matter in anyway if the belief was right or not...they held God's existence as a matter of fact, not a matter of faith.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavYou are far from correct.
Do they? I can think of one or two atheists on these forums to dont have some childish agenda like the one you put forward- again I am correct.
How can you honestly believe atheists are desperate to prove their..."faith" in no god? There is no faith in no God. It's absence of faith in a God, and trying to make tards like you see that there is no need or logical reason to believe in God.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, gravity hasn't been proven, it's just a theory, but even so...1. Things fall down to the earth
2. There must be some sort of force to pull these down
3. No other explanation of why things fall to the earth
1. Not Helium.
2. Why?
3. Very busy Angels.
Originally posted by lord xyz
How can you honestly believe atheists are desperate to prove their..."faith" in no god? There is no faith in no God. It's absence of faith in a God, and trying to make tards like you see that there is no need or logical reason to believe in God.
Or "tards" like Einstein? And I'm not exactly sure how you could even begin to prove that some people don't "need" to believe in God.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos1. I didn't say everything.
1. Not Helium.
2. Why?
3. Very busy Angels.Or "tards" like Einstein? And I'm not exactly sure how you could even begin to prove that some people don't "need" to believe in God.
Just because Einstein thought up the theory of relativity (possibly stole it from Smith), doesn't mean everything he believes is right. I'm sorry, but believing in God is retarded.
This would belong in another thread.
Originally posted by lord xyz
1. I didn't say everything.
2. Forces are what causes things to move.
3. That's not true.
1. Things implies everything.
2. According to science, not in the case of gravity.
3. You have no way of knowing that.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Just because Einstein thought up the theory of relativity (possibly stole it from Smith), doesn't mean everything he believes is right. I'm sorry, but believing in God is retarded.This would belong in another thread.
You miss the point. Perfectly intelligence rational people, even geniuses, can believe that God exists.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I think your wrong...XYZ is an atheist and his stated aim is to disprove God.
Well then his toil is futile, because he endeavors at a logically impossible task.
Atheism is a belief, not a dogmatic statement, nor a condescending platform from which to preach.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"I wouldn't call myself an 'atheist', because that's still technically a belief."-Bill Maher to Larry King
Partially true. Agnosticism is the only completely defensible belief from a true/false perspective. Though reasonable conclusions can be gleaned from evidence or lack thereof, making some "beliefs" far more logical than others.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Atheism is a belief, not a dogmatic statement, nor a condescending platform from which to preach.
It's used as one more often than not. I'm sure you don't see the obvious comparisons to how many militant atheists treat Christianity but that's okay because I'm willing to hope that most people do.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Einstein's God was a straight metaphor for the physical forces of the universe and his awe at their majesty.Pantheism, if anything. But even that's a stretch.
You're avoiding/missing the entire point. Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Planck all happened to believe in God despite their brilliance. Being religious does not an idiot make.
Atheism as a faith:
linguistically, it is impossible. Not having faith cannot be having faith, or else the term "to have faith" is meaningless (it can mean both its definition, and the opposite).
However, GMG made an interesting point earlier in the thread. given that our culture assumes God to be true, there is a type of idea formation that would be required to deny the truth of God. I think it becomes more complicated when you try to distinguish between losing a belief and believing other things which are mutually exclusive to prior beliefs, and I don't have the foggiest about the brain with regards to that.
Also, people by their nature are social animals, that want group approval, want to be part of a meaningful movement, and thus, will act in the same "brainwashed" and "conformist" ways with regard to atheism as they would toward religion. Look at how people reference Dawkins, it is almost a mirror of how people refer to the bible, especially in the way that it shows people have no understanding of the arguments they are making, they just believe what it is that is written in the book they happen to believe (and to be frank, I know of more religious people who understand their theology than atheists who understand the science they use in debates).
This also ignores a few other things. There are "beliefs" that atheists and skeptics do have. Materialism, mechanism, normally reductionism. No, these do not have organizational rules for behaviour or other religious allusions, however, they do propose completely unverifiable (universally unverifiable) ideas.
imho, atheists that refer to themselves as such in any meaningful way, really have just put on a different team's jersey.
Originally posted by Bardock421. No evidence to support this
How do you know?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos1. So?
1. Things implies everything.
2. According to science, not in the case of gravity.
3. You have no way of knowing that.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosYes, but believing in God is still retarded.
You miss the point. Perfectly intelligence rational people, even geniuses, can believe that God exists.
I don't get what your point is, smart people can believe in God, therefore the god theory is intelligent? Or it's wrong for me to say believing in God is retarded because Einstein believed in God? If einstein believed in God, he's retarded in that field, and I don't expect anyone to take him seriously in that field either.