I can't show you statistics, though its possible that surveys exist. The fact is, a lot of people, regardless of their religious beliefs, don't know much about evolution, or care much about it. For most people, science isn't a big concern in their lives, so they don't have firm beliefs about things like the big bang or evolution. So, while some might not be violently opposed to the theory of evolution, they might still not have any kind of well-formed belief in that theory. Having said that, the whole idea that anybody needs to believe in scientific theories in the same way that one believes in the supernatural is a misguided one. Scientific truth rests on objective evidence for or against, not on subjective belief in it. Here's one example, perhaps: Scientologists are atheists, in that they don't believe in gods. A scientologist might well believe that humans have souls ("thetans") that reside in our bodies due to the volcanic explosions created by the alien warlord Xenu, or however the dogma goes. So, the Scientologist doesn't believe that human beings in our present forms arose solely by natural evolution. As you know, it varies among individuals. Because it is common for theists - yourself being one repeat offender - to claim that atheists declare that it is certain that there are no gods (or no God, if you prefer). In fact, very few atheists are that absolute about it. What they tend to say, if they've thought about it, is that there's no convincing evidence for anything supernatural.
That is one thing Jan seems to refuse to acknowledge, James. He may say he does, but the very next post or conversation he will be back beating on that strawman again.
If it is timeless, then it does not change unless you say time is not what you consider it to be. I think of time as a measurement of change thus all of these problems of infinite regress or having a set future or an unknowable past melt away. Although, we have never found a being that is omnipotent, omniscience, or omnibeneveleant. In your post, you did not gave any evidence of this even being possible or showing an example beyond your own imagination. These are extraordinary claims because I have never found, or experienced, or tested with a being or entity who has had these properties. They are really just interesting thoughts that pop into your head and whether they can be possessed or if they even exist or are possible, you do not give any reason for me to think so. Give me example of a being with these properties that you did not just make up, but also have substantial scientific evidence for? Why scientific evidence, because I do not know of any other way to learn about our reality, that is unless you have a successful model of truth that I just don't know about.
Who is we? Then for you, and whoever, God does not exist. Either everything is evidence, or there is no evidence. Theist or atheist. Can you comprehend that? If you can show everything can be evidenced, explained, or understood via your base senses, then you may be on to something. Otherwise you are simply using your imagination without reason. I'm not surprised that you see it like that. But I understand. God can not exist for you, because you without God. A sociopath cannot understand empathy, or compassion, in the way that people generally do. So for such a person, such attributes are purely mental concoctions, and not natural. You do not comprehend the subject matter (God), so what would be the point? How could you explain the existence of empathy, and or, compassion to a being that is devoid of such attributes, as a natural component? And if I don't, you win, and God does not exist? Jan.
So god cannot exist for me because I haven't got god? Seems fair enough And a sociopath cannot understand empathy, or compassion, in the way that people generally do because for such a person, such attributes are purely mental concoctions, and not natural Lets rearrange that a bit Empathy cannot exist for a sociopath because a sociopath haven't got empathy Seems fair enough And that (equals = and is the same as) god cannot exist for me because I haven't got god because for such a person (me) such attributes (god) are purely mental concoctions (god) and not natural (me) I think I got that right and from that logic bowl of spaghetti we have god cannot exist for me because I don't have the attributes of the mental concoctions which are not natural ie mental concoctions which are not natural are god Am I glad I finally got that straighten out from somebody else's view Humpty and Poe Incorporated The views expressed above may not coincide with the truth and as in all cases you should seek the advice of a professional In the words of Irish comedian Dave Allen "May your god go with you"
Right. And for you, it does. Unfortunately, unless you can show some evidence that is objective, i.e. outside your mind, to an impartial 3rd party, you have no way of verifying if it is external or internal to you.
Tried reading the (great) Wiki link but while my twin neurones understand the general concept you have kicked off another argument between them as to the existence of not of Qualia (something, if it is a something, I was unaware existed until today) So now the ' god ' problem becomes before we can answer ' is god a Qualia ' we must establish if a ' Qualia ' exist right? Thanks for throwing a can of baked beans into my bowl of spaghetti Now I have no idea of what I am supposed to digest Humpty and Poe Incorporated Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ready for the war, Jan ardena. Also, I just learned how to put a video into a comment, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Who do I need to show evidence to, and why? Where's your evidence that God does not exist? This question is not of the back of a claim, so please don't bother with the can't prove a negative crop. Thanks. Like I said, for atheists, God can be whatever they concoct, because for them God doesn't exist. Jan.
Me for one and I suspect DaveC426913 Make the claim Provide the proof Ain't got none Not a skerrick To late Even if NOT on the back of a claim it holds true you cannot prove a negative Same applies to Christians Have you seen some of the gods they have concocted? I do like the beards And the wild hair Only needs a Harley Davidson to be on a poster for Hell's Angel's For a god who is Infinite in age he doesn't look a century over 90 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No one. Unless you share your opinions in a public forum for discussion. You are perfectly free to say "these are my personal opinions and I need defend them to nobody and now I'll stop posting them for all to discuss." Again with the feigning ignorance. As you perfectly well know (since this has been hashed many times) we have as much evidence that God does not exist as we have of Russell's Teapot, unicorns and leprechauns not existing. There are literally an infinite number of things for which we have no evidence of them existing. We have - so far - been able to explain what we of the universe fairly well without invoking unicorns or leprechauns. I think even you would agree that it would not be rational to posit their existence in an effort to explain nature. Again, an ad hom. Meaning you have no logical argument.
Why do I need to show evidence to you? I didn't make a claim. Why? Who asked to prove anything? What does that have to do with anything? Jan.
Works both ways. As above. Then don't claim God doesn't exist, or there is no evidence. Just accept that you are without God, and as far as you are concerned God does not exist for that reason. What does that have to do with God? A sociopath existing without firsthand knowledge of compassion, shouldn't have to keep banging on about it's non-existence because he is without it. He should just be content in know it doesn't exist for him. It's true. A perfect example is how you manage to bring in unicorns, leprechauns, and invisible dragons into a discussion about God. It only serves to highlight you're an atheist (without God). Jan.
I am not the one who asked why I should have to defend myself. I haven't. Straw man. Insufficient evidence. You demonstrate that you cannot be objective. You cannot think in ways that might allow for the possibly that god does not exist. On the other hand, I can, and often do, think in ways that might allow for the possibly that god does exist. I don't even claim he doesn't; I simply don't see it helping an explanation of our world. That's called logic. Thinking about the existence of God is not exempt from logical analysis, any more than thinking about the existence of unicorns is exempt from logical analysis. It's pretty safe to say you cannot be objective and logical about the subject. That's OK. But it is a liability in a public debate.
By the Power Invested in Me by the Ancient Order of the Almighty Little White Ball I hereby invoke the 3 PING rule and declare you have reached said 3 PING Hence forth there shall be no hence and no forth So sayith THE WHITE BALL Ping Pong Ping Pong Ping Bye Humpty and Poe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And I should bill you for the repair of the Cowpat detector
Neither did I. You're an atheist, and for you, God does not exist. Sure you may use qualifiers like 'probably' and 'unlikely' to come across as rational, or open-minded. But in reality, on a day to day basis, you have to admit that God doesn't exist. There is no evidence for you, because there no evidence for something, or someone that doesn't exist (your mindset) . What kind of evidence do you need in order to realise God? In the same way I cannot think of ways to allow for the possibility that compassion doesn't exist, to a sociopath who only see compassion from the perspective of being without it. At that point we simply have to agree to disagree. A sociopath can feel the same way about compassion. But the person for whom compassion is simply natural to them, those thought's are really pointless. Especially if the sociopath rejects everything they say. I'm trying to explain that those comparisons are part of the atheist understanding of God. Jan.
Don't. The belief in God is an inextricable component of who you are. You are unable to speak to the atheist understanding. Your only framework is by defining them as without something. It makes as much sense as saying you are trapped in your world since you are without unicorns*. Are you comfortable with being defined by the fact that you are without unicorns? Because that's a pretty narrow view of life you have there. There are an infinite number of things that you and/or I are without. It is nonsensical to define someone by an infinite number of things, it is just as illogical to define someone by being "without" any one of those things. Normal people don't define who they are by what others think about the infinite number of possible things in the universe. *I am not trying to mock you or mock God here. Really, I'm not. Unicorns are simply some thing that we both agree (?) are unlikely to exist, or at least have no meaningful impact on the material world as we understand it (except of course in stories and myth etc). I am trying to show you an analogy wherein you see how you feel about things (any things) that are not factually part of your life. By your logic, we should be able to define you by the fact that you are "without" unicorns. As if being without unicorns lessens you.
