ChatterBank0 min ago
Make Me An Atheist.
196 Answers
Can you convince me of the truth of Atheism?
Quote references from scientists, philosophers, theologians or anybody you like, but anything except an unsupported personal opinion.
Please?
Quote references from scientists, philosophers, theologians or anybody you like, but anything except an unsupported personal opinion.
Please?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Your endless nonsense should not go unchallenged, it will make you even more convinced you are right than ever.
But since you make the point, if I was as sure God existed as you are, I wouldn't waste hours on here trying to convince people who don't care.
I think it is you who is wracked with doubts, not me.
But since you make the point, if I was as sure God existed as you are, I wouldn't waste hours on here trying to convince people who don't care.
I think it is you who is wracked with doubts, not me.
// Theland - you've been told enough times that atheism is the absence of a faith, and an absence is not provable.//
ow yikes!
so if you say - there is no tiger behind that door
and then go and open the door and have a look and see no tiger
that hasnt proven that there was no tiger behind the door ?
oh heavens no wonder my points on Covid fall on leaden ears and elicit only sulky grimaces.
(that was based on Poppers principle of falsifiability)
ow yikes!
so if you say - there is no tiger behind that door
and then go and open the door and have a look and see no tiger
that hasnt proven that there was no tiger behind the door ?
oh heavens no wonder my points on Covid fall on leaden ears and elicit only sulky grimaces.
(that was based on Poppers principle of falsifiability)
// Atheists seem to have a strong faith in the absence of any objective truth... //
Leaving aside the "faith" issue, I'm surprised nobody picked up on the second part. Arguably the entire point of science is to search for an objective truth -- that is to say, it should never matter who is doing the scientific work, the outcome of their studies would be the same as if anybody else did it.
This also explains (among other reasons) why quoting from particular scientists, as in the personalities themselves, is fairly meaningless. Less so, perhaps, in philosophy and theology, which isn't meant as a slight on those disciplines.
Finally, there's no sense in convincing anyone of the truth of atheism. There is nothing that I'm aware of in any scientific discipline that can be said to disprove or prove an atheistic viewpoint. It is, however, simply not necessary to suppose the existence of a creator or creators in order to explain anything that we see around us. As long as that remains true, the Universe is perfectly capable of explaining and justifying its own existence, on its own merits.
Leaving aside the "faith" issue, I'm surprised nobody picked up on the second part. Arguably the entire point of science is to search for an objective truth -- that is to say, it should never matter who is doing the scientific work, the outcome of their studies would be the same as if anybody else did it.
This also explains (among other reasons) why quoting from particular scientists, as in the personalities themselves, is fairly meaningless. Less so, perhaps, in philosophy and theology, which isn't meant as a slight on those disciplines.
Finally, there's no sense in convincing anyone of the truth of atheism. There is nothing that I'm aware of in any scientific discipline that can be said to disprove or prove an atheistic viewpoint. It is, however, simply not necessary to suppose the existence of a creator or creators in order to explain anything that we see around us. As long as that remains true, the Universe is perfectly capable of explaining and justifying its own existence, on its own merits.
I should, perhaps, also add that there is so much that we still don't know about the Universe. But this still counts against the God Hypothesis (or at least the necessity of it), because what this means is that we haven't even got close to running out of other ideas that could do the job just as well. Why not try the material solutions first?
But none of this is meant to be persuasive. I have no interest in "making" anyone an atheist. I'd prefer we live in a secular society, and have a secular government, and I'd prefer that (particularly) organised religion gradually disappear from relevance in public life, but I'd also hope that this come about organically, rather than by force. Only you can "make" yourself an atheist, therefore.
But none of this is meant to be persuasive. I have no interest in "making" anyone an atheist. I'd prefer we live in a secular society, and have a secular government, and I'd prefer that (particularly) organised religion gradually disappear from relevance in public life, but I'd also hope that this come about organically, rather than by force. Only you can "make" yourself an atheist, therefore.
