quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

Whether atheist or religious people are more violent is immaterial to the fact that there is not one shred of credible evidence that the supernatural, in any form, exists.

There isn't a shred of evidence that you exist either outside of science. And even within the limited confines of science, the evidence that you exist can be challenged quite enough to create serious doubt.

Atheists are very fond of challenging religious folk to prove that God exists, and yet, when asked to prove their own existence, they fail miserably. Go on, do it - I dare you. Prove you exist.

quote:

There isn't a shred of evidence that you exist either outside of science. And even within the limited confines of science, the evidence that you exist can be challenged quite enough to create serious doubt.

Atheists are very fond of challenging religious folk to prove that God exists, and yet, when asked to prove their own existence, they fail miserably. Go on, do it - I dare you. Prove you exist.

quote:

I would have thought that the reason why rational people are concerned about the influence of religion on everyday life was pretty obvious in the country that suffered 9/11. 9/11 was carried out by a group of self appointed religious loonies who happened to be Muslim. A glance at history will tell you similar acts have been carried out by similar groups in all the main religions. So often and with such regularity that a case could be made that such crimes against humanity are a feature of religions universally.

quote:

And it is merely sloppy to put the Religious Right and the New Atheists (or any freethinkers) on equal footing. There are no atheist versions of 9/11, no atheists enforcing their views on non-believers, no atheist suicide bombers.

quote:

Atheists don't systematically abuse young children and then protect the abusers a la Catholic Church (and other Churches too)

quote:

It is perfectly appropriate that people who insist that the world lives according to the dictates of their delusions have those delusions challenged, that the influence of those delusions on everyday life and particularly the lives of non-believers is questioned, challenged and resisted.

quote:

no atheists enforcing their views on non-believers

quote:

Quite reasonably, we resist the influence of Marxists and Nazis for this reason.

quote:

Why should 'believers' be beyond questioning or criticism, no matter how absurd their claims, no matter how bloodthirsty their behaviour, history and actions?

quote:

If religion was a private matter carried on by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes then I, as an agnostic, would have no issue with it. Nor, I suspect, would almost all freethinkers.

quote:

But please don't for a moment place me on the same footing as those who choose to lives their lives subject to a relationship with an imaginary friend and then enforce that relationship on the rest of the world murderously. For me the kind of absolutist thinking that permeates all religions

quote:

that licenses the 9/11s of history

quote:

is the very anathema of freethinking and tolerance.

quote:

Actually a religion does say everything I said. Other religions say equally wrong crap.

quote:

Am i to understand that you are denying that Religions have not been responsible for the abuse, discrimination, hatred of gays lesbians and other people who have non-normative sexualities or genders? Everyday i hear people "of the cloth' railing against the sins of 'deviant' sexualities. They quote the Bible/Koran/Torah to support their hatred.

quote:

They resolutely oppose every legislative and social advance minority sexual groups have made since the year dot and continue to do so. As I write this the radio tells me the Pope has condemned the Spanish Govt for having the temerity to legislate for gay marriage, divorce and abortion! It amazes me that i have to point out something this obvious on this website.

quote:

I will leave them to their fantasies when they offer me the same privilege. I would be only too happy to leave them to their fantasies forever - if only they would offer me the same. But we both know that's not going to happen is it?

quote:

I accept the right of religions to exist and for their adherents to practice their beliefs, ie i believe in freedom of religion. Equally i believe in freedom from religion for those who decline to share in the delusions. For as long as religions oppose my right to live my life as i choose, for as long as they actively oppose and incite hate and violence against my perfectly legal and legitimate life choices, i will resist and contest their hate, and continue to point out their delusions hypocrisies and shortcomings.

quote:

When religions finally accept that it's live, love and let live, they will become irrelevant to my life and i wont have anything further to say to them or about them. I cannot convey how much i look forward to that day happening.

quote:

I absolutely agree. This being the case, though, why does the reverse not apply? Why do fundamentalist/terroristic religious beliefs, which often break the rules of their own religious root, have to undermine a more moderate view of spirituality?

quote:

I'm reminded here of the claims of the gun lobby in the US. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Religion is a tool, every bit as powerful as a handgun, in the wrong hands. In the right hands, it offers security and safety in an uncertain world.

All established belief systems are guilty of justifying mass murder. Even our own beloved democratic ideal is stained in blood. Religion has done much good in the world, although it is true that it has also been employed as a force for ill.

quote:

Whether atheist or religious people are more violent is immaterial to the fact that there is not one shred of credible evidence that the supernatural, in any form, exists.

quote:

Actually there have been allot of studies which do in fact show positive results. In Norway now for example there is tests being done where a healer is working with cancer cultures and it show that yes the cultures he is working with have progressed differently than the ones he have not, and there are hundreds of similar experiments being done all over the world. Not not mention that it is quite often things happens that science just can not explain, like crop circles, yes some of them are hoaxes, however there are also circles which grain experts testify can not have been done by known methods. In addition off course you have psychics working with law enforcement which often do yield results, not to mention several photographs of phenomena which while it is not proven real have neither been proven false, and so on and so on. Is there conclusive evidence that the supernatural exist, no,. However your not one shred of credible evidence, that statement just do not hold water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

...Atheists are very fond of challenging religious folk to prove that God exists, and yet, when asked to prove their own existence, they fail miserably. Go on, do it - I dare you. Prove you exist.

I can easily prove I exist as long as you promise to not bring up solipsism (which is what you are arguing when you claim others cannot prove they exist. see Bertrand Russel for an explanation of why solipsism is useless.).

quote:

Please, if there were credible studies showing that "healing" had ANY affect on cancer cells it would be front page news. There may be experiments being done, but unless they can be repeated with consistent results, they are not credible.

quote:

There is no CREDIBLE evidence that crop circles are anything but hoaxes.

quote:

I believe there may be something to the psychic phenomenon, but if there is, it will not have anything to do with the supernatural. It will have to do with a function of the brain.

quote:

My statement that there is not one shred of CREDIBLE evidence to prove the supernatural ist %100 correct..

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

...Atheists are very fond of challenging religious folk to prove that God exists, and yet, when asked to prove their own existence, they fail miserably. Go on, do it - I dare you. Prove you exist.

I can easily prove I exist as long as you promise to not bring up solipsism (which is what you are arguing when you claim others cannot prove they exist. see Bertrand Russel for an explanation of why solipsism is useless.).

I'm not arguing solipsism (in the sense it is more often meant), interesting though it is. Solipsism (usually) is about the impossibility of proving the existence of other minds.

I am not asking you to prove to me that you exist - I already know you do not. What I am asking is for you to prove is that you exist, to yourself, and I am asking you to use science to do it, since you appear to think science is the answer to everything. Let me know when you're done.

EDIT: Many Edits - tricky language...

quote:

ORIGINAL: nephandi

Greetings

quote:

Actually a religion does say everything I said. Other religions say equally wrong crap.

Ok a religion might say what you where saying, the Christian Bible however which Christianity is based on is not.

I wish you well

quote:

Simple experiment, there is a pencil on the desk in front of me, no force is acting on it causing it to have any net velocity. I will now pick it up, imparting a net velocity. I succeeded. I put the pencil back down and repeat the experiment. It worked again.

Therefore I was able to cause a momentum change in another object. Therefore I exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

Simple experiment, there is a pencil on the desk in front of me, no force is acting on it causing it to have any net velocity. I will now pick it up, imparting a net velocity. I succeeded. I put the pencil back down and repeat the experiment. It worked again.

Therefore I was able to cause a momentum change in another object. Therefore I exist.

Far too many assumptions for my liking. What you have done here is observe. And even if your observations are accurate, you certainly haven't proven anything.

I'm kinda surprised you didn't go for 'cogito ergo sum' - that's where Descartes went, because he could see that your 'proof' is next to useless.

Look, here's the point. In order to dismiss the idea of God, you ask for proof of existence. The fact that someone tells you, clearly, that they have experienced God doesn't do it for you. It's not enough. I suggest to you that what you have done here isn't enough. What you have done is simply project forward from what you think you are experiencing to the conclusion that you exist. That's exactly what the God-botherers do. They project forward from what they think they experience to the conclusion that God exists. If this sort of thinking isn't good enough for them to use, then I don't see why you think the same standards should not apply to you.

You don't exist.

quote:

You have now ventured into solipsism which you agreed before hand to not do. Without engaging in the zero sum game that is solipsism my experiment provided experimental evidence to me of my existence which is what you demanded.

As to the god existence argument my experiment could be observed by third parties providing them with the same evidence for my existence. No such evidence exists for any supernatural entity or event.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

You have now ventured into solipsism which you agreed before hand to not do. Without engaging in the zero sum game that is solipsism my experiment provided experimental evidence to me of my existence which is what you demanded.

As to the god existence argument my experiment could be observed by third parties providing them with the same evidence for my existence. No such evidence exists for any supernatural entity or event.

What I agreed not to do (and you can check it out if you like - it's only a few posts above) is rely on the argument that whatever you said, I would ignore it because I can't be sure you exist. 

What's happening here is different. You are applying a standard of proof to the existence of God which you are unwilling to apply to your own thinking. Here's why it is important. If we accept what you have offered as proof that you exist, then, when I tell you that every day, I experience God and the wonders of his creation, and that everything  I experience proves to me that God exists, you are going to have to accept that as evidence enough. After all, it's exactly the same argument as you have employed to 'prove' to me that you exist.

Your argument that third parties cannot confirm my thinking is untrue. There is a huge congregation of believers who share my experience and can confirm everything I am saying.

All I am asking you to do is apply the same standards to your own thinking that you expect believers to apply to their thinking. What is difficult or unfair about that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You are simply ignoring a basic point. My experiment can be observed by anyone, providing those people with experimental evidence of my existence (despite your solipsism). No such experimental evidence of god is forthcoming.

Without your entry in solipsism, that I cannot prove anything outside of my mind, your argument falls apart and as part of the basic foundation of this discussion we agreed you would not venture into solipsism. Until you can abide by the rules please cease responding to me, I am uninterested in engaging in further discussion with someone so fundamentally dishonest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You are simply ignoring a basic point. My experiment can be observed by anyone, providing those people with experimental evidence of my existence (despite your solipsism). No such experimental evidence of god is forthcoming.

Without your entry in solipsism, that I cannot prove anything outside of my mind, your argument falls apart and as part of the basic foundation of this discussion we agreed you would not venture into solipsism. Until you can abide by the rules please cease responding to me, I am uninterested in engaging in further discussion with someone so fundamentally dishonest.

OK, so here's the long and short of it...

Firstly, you are unwilling to engage in argument with me unless I agree to terms and conditions around the argument which will apply to myself, but not to you.

quote:

Secondly, you claim that because your flawed experiments in pencil placement can be observed by anyone, you must exist. But you deny that a believers experiments in prayer, which can also be observed by anyone, prove the existence of a deity.

quote:

Thirdly, rather than taking responsibility for your own reply, you attempt to pass that responsibility to me, by suggesting that I should not reply to you, whilst you leave the door open for you to continue with the dialogue.

Fourthly, fuck it - if you are going to start name-calling, then maybe I shouldn't be bothering with you.

How's that? Comprehensive enough for you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I told you at the start I was uninterested in dealing with solipsism. I told you to read Russel if you wanted to go that route. You explicitly agreed to not engage in solipsism but then did so in the first reply in the deiscussion. What besides dishonest do you call that?

quote:

Prayer does not show action by a supernatural entity, it is action by the person praying. Proof of god requires identifiable action by god. Just as my moving a pencil shows action by me.

quote:

You explicitly agreed to not engage in solipsism but did so in your first reply after that. I pointed that out to you and you did it again and then I said you were being dishonest which isn't name calling it is a simple statement of fact.