Following on from the >>God has been evicted from cosmology . . .<< thread.

[RATTER15]

OK, imagine this: It has been proven beyond any doubt with categoric proof that there is no Gods, anywhere or ever has been. even al the religious leaders worldwide have accepted this.

What now?

How would the world take shape?

I think the more extremist cultures and faiths like Muslims would need to war against something, I actually think that if it happened overnight some parts of the human race would never cope and would go into meltdown without their Gods.

Of course I know this could never be proven but just an interesting thought.

[Khandro]

Naomi; "Some of them refuse believe proven science now" What exactly is this proven science?

[seadogg]

You have a point Khandro. Science is prone to paradigm shifts like any other field of study but that is not to rubbish its findings. Rather it is a new point on a journey towards truth. Pity though 'cos most of us cannot get much beyond Newtons Laws.

[jake-the-peg]

I wouldn't want to put words in Naomi's mouth but we could start with Homeopathy.

To believe in that you have to reject quite a lot of proven science - the second law of Thermodynamics for one.

[Khandro]

Jake, I was refering to Naomi (post #4). Which seems to imply that science had proven the non-existence of God.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, if the best you can do is quote me out of context in order to discredit me - because, as usual, that's what you're attempting to do - then I suggest you abandon this debate now. You forget that the thread is there for anyone who wants to read it and it's quite clear that the tongue in cheek comment was a light-hearted joke with Chakka that did not relate to the subject matter.

//Naomi did say she would change her mind but so far I have to see that happening on this website.//

Now you're just being silly again. You asked me to show you a thread where I conceded that I was wrong - and I've done it - and the thread is clear enough. You're not fooling anyone.

Khandro, I'm not with you. I wrote //Some of them refuse [to] believe proven science now - even when the facts are staring them in the face they cling to their superstitious theology - so I doubt they'd believe that either.//

I fail to see how that implies that science has proven the non-existence of God.

[chakka35]

sandyRoe - I am absolutely sure that naomi, like me, would be prepared - in my case wildly excited - to consider that I am wrong about the non-existence of God if you would just supply one tiny smidgeon of evidence for his existence which I could consider and investigate.

Until then there is no reason to take God any more seriously than (no, I won't repeat those well-used analogies of mine) astrology, crystal balls, alien abductions or unicorns, to name but a very few of a long list of irrationalities.

[chakka35]

naomi - surely you of all people should have learnt years ago that trying to debate with keyplus is like ...er.. I've done the nailing jelly to the ceiling bit, haven't I?..like trying to stick a post-it note to a waterfall.. well, anyway, totally pointless. He asked you for just one example, you generously gave him several and he still asks. Why do you bother?

[naomi24]

Chakka, //He asked you for just one example, you generously gave him several and he still asks. Why do you bother? //

Funny you should ask that, because only recently Birdie wished me good luck in attempting to debate women's issues with Keyplus, and I think the answer I gave him will also answer your question.

//Oh, I no longer see it as 'debating' with Keyplus, Birdie. I just try to highlight the facts in the hope that he will eventually be honest enough with himself to concede that they are facts - although of course, after a lifetime of being taught to believe without question the glaring inaccuracies his book contains, I realise that's difficult for him to come to terms with.//

Actually, Chakka, I am quite sincere (what else?) in saying I realise that after a lifetime of indoctrination it must be difficult for him to accept that his book contains glaring inaccuracies. I count myself one of the lucky ones, because I haven't undergone such appalling indoctrination from birth, and therefore my intellect remains my own. Of course, I use the word 'lucky' advisedly. ;o)

And like you, I would be very excited if someone could produce a smidgeon of proof for the existence of God - although if that ever happens, I'm quite convinced that the 'proven' God won't be the fellow the Abrahamic religions promote.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, Any chance of an answer to Jake's question?

//Now - what proof would you need to accept God does not exist?//

[beso]

Debating with the religious isn't about attempting to have them change their minds or even concede a single point. They simply won't because they have already been thoroughly indoctrinated.

It is done to encourage them to reveal just how far they will promote their ridiculous assertions. The more irrational they appear the more likely anyone seriously contemplating the adoption of religious perspectives will elect not do do so.

The musings of the faithful are a far more powerful demonstration of the stupidity of religion than anything posted by atheists.

[naomi24]

beso, //It is done to encourage them to reveal just how far they will promote their ridiculous assertions.//

That's not why I do it. I just think it's so sad that people are so willing to sacrifice their intellect to complete irrationality - and only because other human beings, who cannot possibly possess the extraordinary knowledge or exceptional wisdom they claim, told them they must. And the hapless victim, in all sincerity, passes that same lie on to his offspring who then spend their lives, as their teacher has, in senseless fear of something that has no foundation - and so the evil that is organised religion continues to thrive.

[Khandro]

beso, And vice versa! 'The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity'. W.B. Yeats.

[keyplus90]

What proof do you have that God does not exist? You give me the proof you have instead of asking me that what proof I would need.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, I don't claim to have proof, and I never have, but that isn't the question.

Jake asked you what proof would you need to accept God does not exist?

Don't you want to answer it?

[RATTER15]

He wont answer that Naomi, facing up to the fact that there is no God would really leave a hollow man!!

[keyplus90]

I believe that God exists. So why should I say what proof do I need to prove that he does not exist. Instead I am giving you all of the options. Onus is on the people to provide proof that why do they believe that God does not exist.

Ratter – Why don’t you answer my question I asked you before you start echoing for your faith fellows.

[Khandro]

'Jake asked you what proof would you need to accept God does not exist?'
This sounds to me like a totally fatuous request; asking someone to produce evidence to negate something they believe in, that is surely your job - if you are so-minded.

[naomi24]

Keyplus and Khandro, this is only a discussion and I see nothing wrong with being asked to contemplate possibilities. We atheists are asked to do it all the time - and we usually oblige.

[birdie1971]

Khandro & Keyplus:

Jake made a very reasonable statement and a very reasonable request. He clearly stated that he would accept that God exists (and so, change his entire opinion on everything he has ever believed in) if God were to resurrect the dead (which God has done several times previously if the religious scriptures are to be believed) who could then give an account of the afterlife. As the existence of God is an extraordinary claim, it demands extraordinary proof and this scenario would provide it – Jake would accept that God exists and so would I.

Neither one of you has taken him up on his offer. Why? It strikes me that neither one of you is as open minded as Jake as your failure to engage in his hypothetical scenario demonstrates. Neither one of you will even contemplate the possibility that God does not exist.

Keyplus simply attempts to turn the question on it's head by asking, “... What proof do you have that God does not exist? You give me the proof you have instead of asking me that what proof I would need...”, which completely fails to address Jake's question and which is par for the course for Keyplus. Blood and stones spring to mind.

And Khandro makes a similarly moot point that, “... This sounds to me like a totally fatuous request; asking someone to produce evidence to negate something they believe in, that is surely your job - if you are so-minded...”. Why is it fatuous to request proof for your beliefs?


Why is it such a contentious issue to ask what evidence would make you doubt your faith? It's a perfect reasonable question which you are both deliberately attempting to obfuscate.