School Protests (4 Viewers)

[Skybluefaz]

I mean, it's a nonsense, but what would constitute evidence that 'God' doesn't exist. It's such a mental abstract theory that any evidence would just be dismissed. Sorry don't know how I've allowed myself to get sucked in to this one.

 

---

[Otis]

No I don't think it holds science back , it holds people back

Not so sure about in the US and the nutcase creationists there. They want to dismiss science, if not hold it back.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

I mean, it's a nonsense, but what would constitute evidence that 'God' doesn't exist. It's such a mental abstract theory that any evidence would just be dismissed. Sorry don't know how I've allowed myself to get sucked in to this one.

It's unlikely that there will ever be evidence to show that God doesn't exist, any more than there will be evidence to show that Santa Claus does not exist. The burden of evidence is on those who believe in a supernatural being, whether it be any of the world's 2000+ gods, to prove that their God exists (should that God's laws impinge my freedoms), not for science to prove that such a being does not exist.

Science is simply used to test any evidence that believers in God may put forward. And to date, there is not a single shred of evidence.

As Ricky said, when we find a jar of supposedly Godliness, we'll test it for its godliness, and if we find that it does indeed contain Godliness then we will all celebrate the greatest scientific finding of all time.

 

[TomRad85]

I'm not even religious. I just find the kind of im so smart because I'm not religious posts a little bit cringe. Most people who aren't religious will be non religious because A. Their parents probably aren't, and B. The country we live in isn't particularly anymore. Its just mimicking the behaviour of those around you similar to how a religious person in a religious country would, its not big brain time.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Grendel]

It's unlikely that there will ever be evidence to show that God doesn't exist, and more than to show that Santa Claus does not exist. The burden of evidence is on those who believe in a supernatural being, whether it be any of the world's 2000+ gods, to prove that their God exists (should that God's laws impinge my freedoms), not for science to prove that such a being does not exist.

Science is simply used to test any evidence that believers in God may put forward. And to date, there is not a single shred of evidence.

As Ricky said, when we find a jar of supposedly Godliness, we'll test it for its godliness, and if we find that it does indeed contain Godliness then we will all celebrate the greatest scientific finding of all time.

I have no interest in religion but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the mocking of religion. Pete is clearly a good guy and mocking faith seems unfair. It’s brave I think in a football forum to stand up for his beliefs

 

[Otis]

I'm not even religious. I just find the kind of im so smart because I'm not religious posts a little bit cringe. Most people who aren't religious will be non religious because A. Their parents probably aren't, and B. The country we live in isn't particularly anymore. Its just mimicking the behaviour of those around you similar to how a religious person in a religious country would, its not big brain time.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I used to be in the church choir and went to church every Sunday

Then I started questioning when I got to about 14 and reasoned and rationalised everything out and decided it was a total nonsense and made absolutely no sense at all. Religious teachings based on books written by men, for men, hundreds of centuries ago.

 

[Otis]

I have no interest in religion but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the mocking of religion. Pete is clearly a good guy and mocking faith seems unfair. It’s brave I think in a football forum to stand up for his beliefs

It's organised religion that is the problem and Pete will agree on that.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

I have no interest in religion but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the mocking of religion. Pete is clearly a good guy and mocking faith seems unfair. It’s brave I think in a football forum to stand up for his beliefs

I don't feel like I am mocking. If you mean mind the inclusion of Santa Claus, that wasn't meant to be pejorative but illustrative. If it offended, then I apologise. But I will continue to feel free to argue the points made. I actually envy those who have religious faith, though that admittance shouldn't be taken as the reason for my views.

 

[Otis]

I think it is absolutely fine for anyone to believe, or not to believe in a God

It's the religious rules laid down from books from ancient times that causes the problems

 

[Deleted member 4439]

I used to be in the church choir and went to church every Sunday

Then I started questioning when I got to about 14 and reasoned and rationalised everything out and decided it was a total nonsense and made absolutely no sense at all. Religious teachings based on books written by men, for men, hundreds of centuries ago.

I was brought up to attend church and Sunday school as well. I didn't actually lose my faith until I was 27.

 

[TomRad85]

I have no interest in religion but I feel slightly uncomfortable with the mocking of religion. Pete is clearly a good guy and mocking faith seems unfair. It’s brave I think in a football forum to stand up for his beliefs

The only religious person in here is Christian so people feel comfortable ridiculing it. Would be interesting to see if there were similar comments if a few other faiths were represented.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[mrtrench]

Agnosticism is some fence sitting bullshit. What else do you pontificate on the existence of without any evidence at all an significant evidence to the contrary?

All knowledge is belief, but religion is way past the same threshold we use every day for other stuff. Thinking the sun will come up tomorrow based on the preponderance of evidence doesn’t meant you have a religious belief in the sun.

I don't pontificate on the existence of a God.

My position is quite simple. I think that the human race understands very little about the nature of the Universe and nothing about what, if anything, is outside the Universe. *

I don't believe in any of the Gods that humans have imagined. However I believe it is entirely feasible that something sentient that sits outside our current knowledge of matter could exist and may even be directing the Universe in some way. I don't believe that there is, I just consider it possible. And given the tiny slither of knowledge we have, I prefer to fence-sit.

Personally, I think it as bizarre to firmly believe there is no God as it is to firmly believe there is.

* Edited in: So here's an example of some things that science cannot explain:

1. According to the big bang theory, the rate of increase of the Universe should be slowing. But it's accelerating.

2. According to The Theory of Relativity, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. However we know that entangled electrons appear to communicate with each other instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are.

3. Light appears to be both a wave and not a wave.

Possibly some some adjustment to existing theories would resolve these. However, I personally think that we're still miles away from understanding. And even when we understand that we may move from 0.000001% of knowledge to 0.0000015%.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Personally, I think it as bizarre to firmly believe there is no God as it is to firmly believe there is.

Has anybody said that? I think what most if not all have said is that there are no scientific bases to believe. That's quite a different thing. This is what atheism is: an opinion based on all knowledge and laws that no proof has been to shown that a God exists, any more than anything else outside of the known universe. It is not a position based on proof that God does not exist; it is a position based on proof that there is no evidence that a God exists.

It's also why agnosticism fails. If you are agnostic about the existence of God, given all knowledge and reason, then why believe in anything at all. You either believe on the basis of evidence and reason, or you adopt (something of) a faith.

 

[mrtrench]

Has anybody said that? I think what most if not all have said is that there are no scientific bases to believe. That's quite a different thing. This is what atheism is: an opinion based on all knowledge and laws that no proof has been to shown that a God exists, any more than anything else outside of the known universe. It is not proof that God does not exist; it is proof that there is no evidence that a God exists.

OK, so we may actually agree with each other but are getting in a muddle because of definition of terms. If that is the definition of an atheist, then what is the definition of an agnostic? Because I call myself an agnostic deliberately because I don't know and have no evidence either way.

 

[TomRad85]

Has anybody said that? I think what most if not all have said is that there are no scientific bases to believe. That's quite a different thing. This is what atheism is: an opinion based on all knowledge and laws that no proof has been to shown that a God exists, any more than anything else outside of the known universe. It is not proof that God does not exist; it is proof that there is no evidence that a God exists.

It's also why agnosticism fails. If you are agnostic about the existence of God, given all knowledge and reason, then why believe in anything at all. You either believe on the basis of evidence and reason, or you adopt (something of) a faith.

Why is that coming up as my quote? That's a Mr Trench one isn't it? Weird.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Why is that coming up as my quote? That's a Mr Trench one isn't it? Weird.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Dunno!! Soz.

 

[mrtrench]

It's also why agnosticism fails. If you are agnostic about the existence of God, given all knowledge and reason, then why believe in anything at all. You either believe on the basis of evidence and reason, or you adopt (something of) a faith.

You added more later!

Why would admitting I don't know enough to hold a position on something so meta and with so little knowledge, mean that I don't believe in anything at all? That's one hell of an abuse of proof by induction.

 

[mrtrench]

Why is that coming up as my quote? That's a Mr Trench one isn't it? Weird.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Proof of divine intervention, maybe.

 

[TomRad85]

Dunno!! Soz.

Apology accepted.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[mrtrench]

I was brought up to attend church and Sunday school as well. I didn't actually lose my faith until I was 27.

I think I was about the same age. Possibly slightly younger but not much.

 

[clint van damme]

There's also zero evidence that pink ponies with big blue wings do not exist .... but here we are

That reminds me, mines is due a feed

 

[Deleted member 4439]

OK, so we may actually agree with each other but are getting in a muddle because of definition of terms. If that is the definition of an atheist, then what is the definition of an agnostic? Because I call myself an agnostic deliberately because I don't know and have no evidence either way.

Well, I confess we may well be getting into the realms of deep philosophy and semantics. But, atheism denies the existence of a God based on known facts (or enquiry of the mind), whereas agnosticism is a position that there is no firm factual basis to deny or accept that there is a god. In other words, the facts around the existence of God are equal and opposing.

Again, being atheist doesn't deny the possibility of there being a God; rather that, on the known evidence, there is no God.

 

[clint van damme]

Some really good arguments and interesting points being made on this thread. If only it could awlays be ike this!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

OK, so we may actually agree with each other but are getting in a muddle because of definition of terms. If that is the definition of an atheist, then what is the definition of an agnostic? Because I call myself an agnostic deliberately because I don't know and have no evidence either way.

I thought agnosticism was not believing there's a God, but kind of hoping there is one really.

I can get on with that.

 

[clint van damme]

Why is that coming up as my quote? That's a Mr Trench one isn't it? Weird.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Divine intervention?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Oh, and I understand how at moments of crisis, people hope there's something more out there.

 

[TomRad85]

I thought agnosticism was not believing there's a God, but kind of hoping there is one really.

I can get on with that.

Yeh pretty much what I thought it was. I think its a perfectly reasonable stance.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

The only religious person in here is Christian so people feel comfortable ridiculing it. Would be interesting to see if there were similar comments if a few other faiths were represented.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

They wouldn't and that is part of the problem

 

[Otis]

Oh, and I understand how at moments of crisis, people hope there's something more out there.

Especially after City were so abject yesterday.

 

[clint van damme]

Yeh pretty much what I thought it was. I think its a perfectly reasonable stance.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I'm with Christopher Hitchens on this. The thought of some divine invigilator constantly watching over us and everything we do is frightening.
I don't believe there's a god and I hope there isn't. I am one of the richest, healthiest human beings that ever lived with one of he hghest llfe expectancies, that will do for me.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

* Edited in: So here's an example of some things that science cannot explain:

1. According to the big bang theory, the rate of increase of the Universe should be slowing. But it's accelerating.

2. According to The Theory of Relativity, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. However we know that entangled electrons appear to communicate with each other instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are.

3. Light appears to be both a wave and not a wave.

Possibly some some adjustment to existing theories would resolve these. However, I personally think that we're still miles away from understanding. And even when we understand that we may move from 0.000001% of knowledge to 0.0000015%.

Should the world survive a few more thousand years then indeed we will look like we are from before the age of enlightenment. Eighty-five percent of the universe, including the very stuff we exist in, is made up of dark matter about which we know next to nothing.

Going way back to my misspent times, I had the God-spot experience whilst on LSD, amphetamine and dope. It was both frightening and revelatory. My whole being was like a body of atoms merged with my entire surroundings as a shield of pure, white light. I was the wall, the floor, the universe. This wasn't just some mad visionary thing. It was me, everything as one as white light.

I also know from my doctorate studies in cognition and posture that as much as this being a view of the universe it could simply be a complete breakdown of my physical senses. But who knows?

 

[clint van damme]

Proof of divine intervention, maybe.

Didn't see this post when I posted my divine intervention quip, apologies!

 

[Deleted member 4439]

I thought agnosticism was not believing there's a God, but kind of hoping there is one really.

I can get on with that.

No, that's atheism (well, with or without the hope).

 

[Deleted member 5849]

No, that's athesim.

Atheism is actively disbelieving, and sure and certain there is no God.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Atheism is actively disbelieving, and sure and certain there is no God.

No, it is the metaphysical position that God does not exist, in response to the question of whether or not there is a God, on the basis of the available evidence, knowledge, and thought. It does not rule about the possibility of there being a God - though for sure in deep philosophy this all becomes a debate based on semantics (as most philosophy does).