A lot of people (*cough* heretics */cough*) who don't believe in The Ugly Fish ask for proof that he exists... well I put it to you... prove that he doesn't exist! And lo! Like the Christain heretics before me, I have won the argument based on the fact that what I beleve in is a load of crap that is conveniantly impossible to disprove! And still I believe on blind faith alone, unlike those fucking atheist/agnostic idiots who continue to disbelieve in my (very) specific religion based - and get this - entirely on very strong evidence indeed! Fucking idiots, don't they know that once you have as good as ruled out the totally rediculous, you should proceed to believe it immediately (or am I misquoting here?)?

quote:And still I believe on blind faith alone, unlike those fucking atheist/agnostic idiots who continue to disbelieve in my (very) specific religion based - and get this - entirely on very strong evidence indeed!

I suppose that could have some validity to it, but only when you're going up against someone who is part a religion. This statement has nothing against those who simply believe in God but don't bind themselves to any religion. If they don't have a religion there can be no strong evidence agaisnt what they believe, as [unless they've outlined everything they believe specifically] all you really know about them is that they believe in God. And if theres evidence showing that God does not exist I'd like to see it!

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

I suppose that could have some validity to it, but only when you're going up against someone who is part a religion. This statement has nothing against those who simply believe in God but don't bind themselves to any religion. If they don't have a religion there can be no strong evidence agaisnt what they believe, as [unless they've outlined everything they believe specifically] all you really know about them is that they believe in God. And if theres evidence showing that God does not exist I'd like to see it!

Did you miss everything he said?

Belief in any sort of God, whether part of an established religion or not, is blind faith without evidence of any sort.

Furthermore, he is NOT talking about evidence against what they believe. That's the point, you can't really disprove it by its convenient nature.

Rather, it's evidence of an alternative. Something that all the evidence points to.

It's kind of like this:

It would be really nice to believe that the mother and her child were killed by the raving crackhead psychotic.

The evidence, though, points to her husband bleeding her like a pig.

It's not the happier of the two ideas... in fact, it's much more depressing. Furthermore, there's no evidence specifically indicating that the crackhead did not do it. There's nothing proving he was elsewhere at the time, or otherwise offering evidence that he could not possibly have done it.

However, we can safely assume it was not him because we know that it was the husband. The evidence shows it. The FACTS show it.

The onus (burden of proof) is never on the negative side of the argument; it is on the positive side. If you say that something is a certain way, then you must explain the reason why; you must give evidence that you are, in fact, correct.

You need no evidence to point out the lack of evidence. There needs be no proof that God does not exist for the "theory" do be dismissed as laughable. It is simply a completely insubstantial argument, ancient superstitious explanations of what rational thought had yet to explain. It has no merit.

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 02-11-2004).]

Wow... considering the torrent of shit that has as good as drowned totse recently (that image has just put me off the tin of pear halves I'm eating) I half expected people to take me seriously, but those posts almost restored my faith in humanity!

SEN D-F, you have a point in that science doesn't explain everything, and therefore it's still possible that devine intervention is responsible for that which we don't know. While I don't like this idea, I think it has to be accepted which is why I think of myself as a very sceptical agnostic. I wonder if people would still believe in God if science could explain everything - what happened before the big bang, why quantum mechanics appear a bit random etc. It still wouldn't be disproof of the existance of God, but any sort of devine intervention in our universe - whether outlined specifically by scripture or not - would obviously never have taken/not be taking place.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

why quantum mechanics appear a bit random etc.

i thought the very basis of the theory of quantum mechanics were probability and choas, with a whole shitload of theory sprinkled onto that...

ALSO, there are still certain situations in which quantum physics break down (and that relativity can explain, or not) string theory seems like a nice solution, but its really damned weird and a little farfetched.

I think that when physicists are asked something they cannot possibly find the anwser to huge questions knowingly in their lifetime they should respond, "because god did it that way, but that doesnt mean im not going to try to figure out how it works"

afterall you cant seriously expect to make a unified theorem of physics (less if your another einstien, and i really do believe that there is a very powerful unified theorem out there, but i also believe that this certainly wont be able to prove or disprove any kind of god with much strength) and besides, when you do you wont really be any closer to really disproving or proving gods existence, making your statement still theorectically possible and your unified theory correct, sucka...



ok perhaps i am taking things a little too lightly, but regardless of my belief in a god or not (and i doubt there is one for the record, doubt enough to not even risk foolishly putting faith in something that wont do anything for me regardless (though you christian types would/do much disagree) And besides things are much clearer, but sufficently harder without it.)

Id still make that statement cause it sounds right and id baffle a few people on why youd say it if you didnt believe in god.

physicist's put faith in galileo, he wasnt completely right, Newton, wasnt completely right, einstien, not completely right but showed us that an end insight is closer then we may think in our aquisition of knowledge in the universe.

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 02-13-2004).]