ChatterBank0 min ago
If it was proved that God does not exist.
71 Answers
Question for debate,
If it was proven, without a shadow of doubt, that there is not, and never has been the almighty being that we call God, or a creator, people who did not believe, or those that weren't sure, would probably carry on with their lives as normal, but for the believers, worldwide. just what do you think their reaction would be?.
If it was proven, without a shadow of doubt, that there is not, and never has been the almighty being that we call God, or a creator, people who did not believe, or those that weren't sure, would probably carry on with their lives as normal, but for the believers, worldwide. just what do you think their reaction would be?.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lonnie. 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.
It will never, can never, be proven that God exists or does not exist. Surely this is self-evident?
God will always be a matter of Faith because no other way makes any sense. People like Richard Dawkins make me chuckle, all that anger and indignation.
The deathbed comes to everybody, Richard Dawkins et al will maybe be delighted to be disappearing to absolute nothingness, I trust that there is something a bit better.
God will always be a matter of Faith because no other way makes any sense. People like Richard Dawkins make me chuckle, all that anger and indignation.
The deathbed comes to everybody, Richard Dawkins et al will maybe be delighted to be disappearing to absolute nothingness, I trust that there is something a bit better.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
wizard, No.
Richard Dawkins and his ilk amuse me with their pent-up hatred. They simply cannot bear to think that stupid people might believe in GOD. They write learned books about it, they spit venom, but simple logic says that God cannot be proved or disproved.
I wonder how Dawkins will feel in his final breaths, maybe a sense of self-satisfaction at proceeding to nothing?
Richard Dawkins and his ilk amuse me with their pent-up hatred. They simply cannot bear to think that stupid people might believe in GOD. They write learned books about it, they spit venom, but simple logic says that God cannot be proved or disproved.
I wonder how Dawkins will feel in his final breaths, maybe a sense of self-satisfaction at proceeding to nothing?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
If the religous want to persue their relationship with their imaginagry friends quietly on their own I have no problem.
But they don't
They want to recruit others to their psychosis, they expect their irrational belief to give them a platform to pontificate on moral issues to the majority of us and worst of all they expect it taught in public schools.
That's why people get all angry.
Although Emile Zola was angrier.
"Society will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest"
Getting back to the question
Easy - look what the reaction is to those who were religious and came out the other side!
There are plenty about.
Michael Portillo was presenting a program on Constantine last week as "an ex-politician and ex-christian"
But they don't
They want to recruit others to their psychosis, they expect their irrational belief to give them a platform to pontificate on moral issues to the majority of us and worst of all they expect it taught in public schools.
That's why people get all angry.
Although Emile Zola was angrier.
"Society will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest"
Getting back to the question
Easy - look what the reaction is to those who were religious and came out the other side!
There are plenty about.
Michael Portillo was presenting a program on Constantine last week as "an ex-politician and ex-christian"
Will gormless be terribly upset to learn that Dawkins (and indeed every athiest I know) is very well aware that God's non-existance cannot be proven and is cited in TGD? Bertrand Russell formulated perhaps the best-known response to issue in 1953 with his celestial teapot.
As for the accusations of bile and spite and anger, Dawkins is passionate certainly but one only has to listen to the man (gormless obviously hasn't) to know how measured and calm he tends to be. He's also dryly amusing.
A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.
Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."
[TBC]
As for the accusations of bile and spite and anger, Dawkins is passionate certainly but one only has to listen to the man (gormless obviously hasn't) to know how measured and calm he tends to be. He's also dryly amusing.
A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he though God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.
Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."
[TBC]
[cont]
As to why atheists are bothered, Dawkins summed that up very nicely too:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
As to why atheists are bothered, Dawkins summed that up very nicely too:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
Waldo ....on the question of the existence of God, Christians are on a winner here as it is much more difficult to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative.
naomi... I hope that you would be proved right, but in my opinion, so many people need a "shoulder," that a new God would soon be installed.
naomi... I hope that you would be proved right, but in my opinion, so many people need a "shoulder," that a new God would soon be installed.
If it's harder to prove a positive, then surely atheists would be on a winner..?
The point is that it is for those that assert something to prove it. If I claim gormless has invisible horns that send mind control beams into the heads of his victims, the onus is on me to prove that this is the case, not him to disprove it.
The point is that it is for those that assert something to prove it. If I claim gormless has invisible horns that send mind control beams into the heads of his victims, the onus is on me to prove that this is the case, not him to disprove it.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News11 mins ago
They Just Can't Help It Can They?
News17 mins ago
Home & Garden19 mins ago
