Are all athiests angry?

Status
Not open for further replies.


Trauntrian said:
I don't really believe in God but refuse to classify myself as an atheist as I don't want to lump myself in with Richard Dawkins and his followers.
Click to expand...
Join the United atheist alliance instead then.
science be praised
 
ilovehorswill said:
So your considered response is at best that I worry too much, at worst I'm crackers. Very dogmatic approach for a self proclaimed free thinker.
Click to expand...

I'm all for free thinking, leaving open the door for doubt and new evidence etc.

There comes a limit though. Just because there is no proof for something existing it does not mean the probability of that thing (a god, or anything else equally as unlikely) existing is 0.5 (i.e. a 50:50 chance).
This is the classic mistake that believers make in their argument. The onus on proving something as incredibly unlikely and complicated as a god existing, when there is absolutely no evidence to support it, is all with the believer. The non-believer's stance is the neutral default position. Just as it would be for hobbits living next door. The believer has all of his work ahead of him to prove his point. That's why they trot out the "faith" trump line each time instead.

It's a funny old world.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
I'm all for free thinking, leaving open the door for doubt and new evidence etc.

There comes a limit though. Just because there is no proof for something existing it does not mean the probability of that thing (a god, or anything else equally as unlikely) existing is 0.5 (i.e. a 50:50 chance).
This is the classic mistake that believers make in their argument. The onus on proving something as incredibly unlikely and complicated as a god existing, when there is absolutely no evidence to support it, is all with the believer. The non-believer's stance is the neutral default position. Just as it would be for hobbits living next door. The believer has all of his work ahead of him to prove his point. That's why they trot out the "faith" trump line each time instead.

It's a funny old world.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in the concept of a God but using "God" as a figure of speech for the sake of clarity, what if "God" is not external but within you? Your criteria is perfectly valid regarding proof but seems more suited to external beings such as hobbits. If "God" is indeed within you then what would constitute proof? Of course if "God" is within you, then ultimately you are that "God", not in an ego sense because we all would be too.

In other words. how could you prove the existence of the timeless within you if all your evidence was dependent on time.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
I don't believe in the concept of a God but using "God" as a figure of speech for the sake of clarity, what if "God" is not external but within you? Your criteria is perfectly valid regarding proof but seems more suited to external beings such as hobbits. If "God" is indeed within you then what would constitute proof? Of course if "God" is within you, then ultimately you are that "God", not in an ego sense because we all would be too.

In other words. how could you prove the existence of the timeless within you if all your evidence was dependent on time.
Click to expand...

Ultimately it isn't my problem. I have the default standpoint. I'm not the one who is making the supernatural claims.
 
I'm considering converting to Atheism - too many 'good guys' that I know are suffering and too many wankers have carefree lives - if God does exist, he's a bit of a bastard. Co-incidentally, I do find my self getting angry with lots of things these days.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
Ultimately it isn't my problem. I have the default standpoint. I'm not the one who is making the supernatural claims.
Click to expand...

Well the question is more philosophical than personal but your answer misses the point.

You are stating that evidence is required to prove the existence of "God". So you must already have some criteria for what would constitute valid evidence. The evidence you would accept appears to be external and a demonstration of supernatural power may convince you, although no such demonstration would convince me. It would simply be a demonstration of power that I didn't understand rather than proof of a "God".

So that leaves scientific proof based on external observation and measurement. But how could science prove the existence of something timeless within you based on the measurements of time.

It's a valid question to ask what would constitute valid evidence if "God" was not external but within you.
 
Rick O Shea said:
I'm considering converting to Atheism - too many 'good guys' that I know are suffering and too many wankers have carefree lives - if God does exist, he's a bit of a bastard. Co-incidentally, I do find my self getting angry with lots of things these days.
Click to expand...

You don't have to convert - it's more like chucking out that old settee in the garage which serves no useful purpose any more and just takes up space.
 
PinzaC55 said:
You don't have to convert - it's more like chucking out that old settee in the garage which serves no useful purpose any more and just takes up space.
Click to expand...

Grrrrr - you're making me angry. I still believe in life after death - that's a scientific fact (matter isn't created or destroyed) - so we're still there - it's just that the molecules have been re-arranged.
 
Rick O Shea said:
Grrrrr - you're making me angry. I still believe in life after death - that's a scientific fact (matter isn't created or destroyed) - so we're still there - it's just that the molecules have been re-arranged.
Click to expand...

Matter can't be created or destroyed but it can be rearranged and change from matter to energy or vice versa. What you call "you" (your consciousness) is minute electrical impulses generated by chemical reactions in your brain which is composed of matter. When you die the chemical reactions stop, so the impulses finish and that's it for "you". You dissipate as a little bit of heat and your brain turns to smelly gloop. You don't exist but your atoms exist inside the grave worms that eat you.
Sorry :cry:
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
I don't believe in the concept of a God but using "God" as a figure of speech for the sake of clarity, what if "God" is not external but within you? Your criteria is perfectly valid regarding proof but seems more suited to external beings such as hobbits. If "God" is indeed within you then what would constitute proof? Of course if "God" is within you, then ultimately you are that "God", not in an ego sense because we all would be too.

In other words. how could you prove the existence of the timeless within you if all your evidence was dependent on time.
Click to expand...
What is this even supposed to mean?

When did this timelessness enter your mortal body? Where does it reside? What does it do? Does it ever leave your mortal body? Does it interact with you or anything else? What?
 
AlpineExile said:
What is this even supposed to mean?

When did this timelessness enter your mortal body? Where does it reside? What does it do? Does it ever leave your mortal body? Does it interact with you or anything else? What?
Click to expand...

This is irrelevant as I am not attempting to prove anything. I am simply asking what would constitute valid evidence if "God" was within you.

Any external display of supernatural power would not prove the existence of an external "God" no matter how miraculous it would appear. It would simply be a display of power beyond my understanding at that point in time. Once it became understood it would no longer be supernatural.

If "God" is eternal and beyond time and space then "God" is timeless.

As no external supernatural claim of proof could be ever be considered valid then the only valid alternative would be that "God" is within, as claimed by some theists, rather than being external.

If "God" is within then the timeless must be within.

What I am asking is, what would constitute proof if that was true as neither external demonstrations of the alleged "supernatural" or scientific empiricism of the external would be reliable.

It's more a question of what constitutes knowledge to a human being.

It's ok saying the onus is on someone else to provide proof but what if you couldn't recognise any truth in the first place as you were too busy waiting for magic tricks or scientific formula.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top