Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is science fact or faith


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 746 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 11:52:17 GMT
Bellatori says:
Hi Diane...
"Can you give a logical argument for practising atheism?- Note I said 'practising'. What facts do you base your atheism on. - You insist on facts being produced for theism, and mock if they cannot be produced. What 'facts' do you base atheism on?"

Actually I did answer your question once before. You may recall the post. It pointed out that you were asking the question the wrong way around. One does not ask...
Why do you not believe in Father Xmas?
You should ask
Why do you believe in Father Xmas?

The problem with the first question is that it can be answered simply with the response "Because there is not one jot of evidence for his existence"

The second question requires discussion and you get children who say...
"He sends presents at Christmas."
"He drinks the sherry (why sherry?) and eats the mince pie"
"He has a white beard. I saw him in Selfridge"
"He takes the carrot for Rudolph"

and then when they get a bit older

"He looks a bit like Daddy"

At which point you have something to discuss...

So back to your question. What does the word atheist mean? It comes from the greek 'a theos' which means 'without God'. So when you ask "What 'facts' do you base atheism on?" I have to say that it is exactly the same type of question as the 'not believe in Father Xmas'. I am 'without God' because I have not seen one fact that suggests that any God exists. I am an unbeliever. It only requires one thing not many and that is an absence of God.

So when you ask for facts you are asking the wrong question. Facts are associated with existence. Zero facts are associated with non-existence.

when I ask you, for example, why do you believe in a God you will produce facts. These I may accept or reject on the basis of logic and reason. Should I reject them all, for whatever reason, then, by definition I am an atheist.

I hope that helps.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 12:38:13 GMT
the parameters you are asking me to meet with proof are your own. your parameters themselves are the strawman

Posted on 4 Mar 2013 12:44:36 GMT
it's like saying "until you show me a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow, i won't believe the God you posit exists", when I never said aught about pots of gold at feet of rainbows in the first place

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 12:51:26 GMT
Bellatori says:
What parameters? I am positting nothing, demanding nothing except you explain your God... you are wriggling and twisting over this one and why? That I simply cannot understand. Either you believe and have reasons for that belief or you don't.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 12:52:15 GMT
Spin says:
Bellatori' Jehovah, God and Allah do not care what you think about the facts. As long as one strives to ignore everyone and everything that jeapordises a belief in a deity, one is guaranteed a place in paradise. (and we think ancient religions had no conception of PR and socio-psychology....)

Posted on 4 Mar 2013 12:56:25 GMT
Bellatori says:
"it's like saying "until you show me a pot of gold at the foot of a rainbow, i won't believe the God you posit exists", when I never said aught about pots of gold at feet of rainbows in the first place"

Who said anything about pots of gold... you did. What I wrote was nothing like that. You are simply squirming and evading the question. I am not putting words in your mouth. I have said you are free to describe your God, whatever that may be, in any way you chose. No constraints. I am not postulating anything about 'your' God simply asking the question "why do you believe?"

Your response has not been to give any reason but simply to evade the question. As I said earlier, simply replying that it is an act of faith is an OK answer. It doesn't prove anything and is far less interesting that offering evidence of some description (and again that is entirely within your purview and unconstrained) but you seem to wish to waffle and somehow put your inability to answer onto others, in this case myself.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 12:57:23 GMT
HotFXMan says:
"Diane - you might feel better if you thought at all."

Actually, Clive, I am now fully convinced that she can't.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:00:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 13:03:51 GMT
HotFXMan says:
Diane - sorry, I mean Polly Puppymum,

This has gone too far.

ATHEISM IS THE LACK OF A BELIEF IN GOD.

It is not a practice, it is not a religion, it is not a faith. Bellatori quite clearly explained Bellatori's position by saying there is not one jot of evidence for the existence of God. That is all that is needed to be an atheist.

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD !!!!!!!!!!!

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:07:02 GMT
HotFXMan says:
Great post Bellatori,

Unfortunately, Diane (I mean Polly Puppymum of course) won't understand a word of it.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:07:49 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:09:47 GMT
who is wriggling and twisting?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:11:14 GMT
Ian says:
I'm still waiting for your sound, reasoned, logical argument that God exists. I don't care what evidence you do or don't provide, but you've assured me repeatedly that such a logical argument exists.

So, what is this logical argument for the existence of god?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:13:56 GMT
HotFXMan says:
Ah, Spin,

Being an idiot and getting it wrong again.

Do you want the Janet and John version? Here it is:

There exists the possibility that a God (definition here - fill in as you like) exists, since anything that can be conceived can be said to have a non-zero probability that it exists. Since this possibility cannot be demonstrated in any way, an individual may believe it to be true or not. Thus, a belief in the existence of God also exists. Those that hold this belief may also be said to "have" this belief. Those that do not, may be said not to "have" this belief or to "lack" this belief.

Conversely, to state that there is a possibility that a non-God exists and that one may hold a belief in the existence of non-God - is a nonsense. Thus your statement is a nonsense.

Posted on 4 Mar 2013 13:14:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 13:16:41 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:15:07 GMT
Spin says:
IN; Why do you expect an argument from ancient religions? Has it not occured to you that if a deity exists, such a "deity" may have absolutely nothing to do with human descriptions of it? Why look to religion for a deity?

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:17:28 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:20:07 GMT
HotFXMan says:
You're back on ignore, Spin. I had forgotten just how much of a d1ckhead you actually are.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:25:43 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:27:32 GMT
Bellatori says:
You are...!

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:33:29 GMT
Bellatori says:
glorify the LORD says: "the reason for my belief is the Bible and Koran. the overall logical trajectory of it. anything beyond this is exess. (am i not allowed this?). the problems begin when people fail to understand this very basic of premises. making my belief into something it's not and the object of belief into something never posited. introducing fallacies. logic has nothing to do with faith. it is logically evidential."

You are 'allowed' anything you like. A bit of explanation would help keep us away from "introducing fallacies"

"the overall logical trajectory of it." I did not understand this at all. What is moving with a trajectory?

"it is logically evidential." I could not quite grasp to what the logically evidential referred.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 13:36:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 13:38:34 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 4 Mar 2013 13:39:49 GMT
Spin says:
No human communication is "logically evidential". All is based on the logic of semantics and semiotics.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 14:46:02 GMT
G. Heron says:
glorify the LORD

Please don't confuse logically consistent with true.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 14:52:13 GMT
Logically consistent equals exactly logically true. As opposed to false.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Mar 2013 14:55:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2013 15:17:10 GMT
Ian says:
Absolutely; if a deity exists the chances that he/she/it/they bears any more than a passing resemblance to anything described by any religious text is considerably more remote than the chances of the deity existing in the first place.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
ARRAY(0xa3c21eac)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  43
Total posts:  746
Initial post:  2 Mar 2013
Latest post:  13 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions