The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Burden of proof on those who claim the Great Sky Fairy in any of its numerous forms does exist. Absence is evidence of absence.

[Blind groper]

Oh, and people aren't "consigned" to hell, they consign THEMSELVES to the eternal torment of not being in the presence of God by rejecting Jesus' salvation.

So, however improbable it may be that the Christian God exists, eternity is a hell of a long time, and since the price of salvation is small, as Pascal said, it might be worth it to believe, particularly when it costs you nothing at all to do so.

But that's just one view.

Several points here.

First. Hell. God is supposed to be a loving parent. No human parent will permit his/her child to harm themselves. For example, we lock poisons and other harmful materials away. A loving parent simply does not permit a child to harm itself. Yet God permits his children to eternally damn themselves. That does not compute with the loving parent model.

Second. Pascal. Here is an alternative model. God is getting incredibly pissed off at all those religious people who keep bothering him. Pray, pray, pray. Scream hymns to keep asking God for this and that. God is so pissed off that he has created a heaven and hell. Heaven for all the people who never bother him - the atheists. Hell for all those importunates who keep screaming at him - the religious.

OK. That is also a silly idea, but no more so than Pascals one.

Third. "That's just one view."

Glad to see you accept that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually, the problem is that you have exactly zero information or evidence either for or against the existence of God, which makes your beliefs a matter of moronic religious faith

No such thing as evidence against the existance of anything and nor is it required or useful

And that's precisely why Atheist claims that God does not exist are fallacious, irrational and illogical.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly.

If your logic was anything other than pure sophistry, it would mean that your own claim that atheism is fallacious, irrational and illogical is fallacious, irrational and illogical.

Seth, you keep asking for critically robust evidence from others.

For the nth time..... Where is the criticAlly robust evidence for the existence of god?

For the N2 time, I'm not making any claim that God or gods exist, therefore I have no burden to provide such evidence.

I wasn't suggesting that you were making a claim -- I was asking where the critically robust evidence for the existence of god is (whether you make that claim or not -- others do, and I was curious if you had any idea where the critically robust evidence for that proposition was). Do you?

And, do you agree that if a person doesn't have said evidence, that it would be irrational to believe in said God?

You rject atheism because you say you think that you havent seen critically robust evidence for it. Do you likewise reject theism since you never provide, ever, any critically robust evidence for it.

My beliefs are not under examination, yours are.

Yours are too. Do you likewise reject theism?

Stop the sophistry and evasion. Do you have critically robust evidence, or not?

I make no claims either for or against theism. I merely analyze YOUR (as in "you Atheists") claims and the strength of your reasoning and logic...which is small and faulty.

I'm not asking what you have claimed. I'm asking what you think.

If a theist doesn't have critically robust evidence for their theism, is it "small and faulty" reasoning and logic for them to adhere to theism?

[Seth]

For the N2 time, I'm not making any claim that God or gods exist, therefore I have no burden to provide such evidence.

I wasn't suggesting that you were making a claim -- I was asking where the critically robust evidence for the existence of god is (whether you make that claim or not -- others do, and I was curious if you had any idea where the critically robust evidence for that proposition was). Do you?

And, do you agree that if a person doesn't have said evidence, that it would be irrational to believe in said God?

I'm not discussing the rationality or irrationality of those who believe in God, I'm discussing the irrationality of Atheists claims that God does not exist.

You rject atheism because you say you think that you havent seen critically robust evidence for it. Do you likewise reject theism since you never provide, ever, any critically robust evidence for it.

My beliefs are not under examination, yours are.

Yours are too. Do you likewise reject theism?

I don't know.

Stop the sophistry and evasion. Do you have critically robust evidence, or not?

I make no claims either for or against theism. I merely analyze YOUR (as in "you Atheists") claims and the strength of your reasoning and logic...which is small and faulty.

I'm not asking what you have claimed. I'm asking what you think.

I think I don't know.

If a theist doesn't have critically robust evidence for their theism, is it "small and faulty" reasoning and logic for them to adhere to theism?

Not necessarily.

[Coito ergo sum]

For the N2 time, I'm not making any claim that God or gods exist, therefore I have no burden to provide such evidence.

I wasn't suggesting that you were making a claim -- I was asking where the critically robust evidence for the existence of god is (whether you make that claim or not -- others do, and I was curious if you had any idea where the critically robust evidence for that proposition was). Do you?

And, do you agree that if a person doesn't have said evidence, that it would be irrational to believe in said God?

I'm not discussing the rationality or irrationality of those who believe in God, I'm discussing the irrationality of Atheists claims that God does not exist.

The thread is about "the God hypothesis" which is about the assertion that God exists. The fact that you decide to talk about something else is up to you.

You have, however, claimed that it is not rational or logical to accept "atheism" without critically robust evidence. Do you likewise accept that it is not rational or logical to accept "theism" without critically robust evidence?

You rject atheism because you say you think that you havent seen critically robust evidence for it. Do you likewise reject theism since you never provide, ever, any critically robust evidence for it.

My beliefs are not under examination, yours are.

Yours are too. Do you likewise reject theism?

I don't know.[/quote]

Really? You don't know what you reject?

Stop the sophistry and evasion. Do you have critically robust evidence, or not?

I make no claims either for or against theism. I merely analyze YOUR (as in "you Atheists") claims and the strength of your reasoning and logic...which is small and faulty.

I'm not asking what you have claimed. I'm asking what you think.

I think I don't know.[/quote]

What don't you know? You answered "I don't know" to the question of whether you reject theism. That sounds nonsensical. You either have rejected it, or you haven't. To say that you don't know what you have and haven't rejected sounds ridiculous. It's probably more evasion and sophistry on your part.

If a theist doesn't have critically robust evidence for their theism, is it "small and faulty" reasoning and logic for them to adhere to theism?

Not necessarily.

So, an atheist who accepts atheism despite having no critically robust evidence that gods don't exist is using faulty logic, but a theist who accepts theism without critically robust evidence may not be using faulty logic? How so?

[surreptitious57]

Religion has substantial positive social utility whether the beliefs are true or not It makes people happy and helps them get through their lives and it does much good in the world Therefore unlike atheism with stand for nothing and does nothing

It is also responsible for international terrorism and historical wars for
the last two thousand years whereas Atheism by contrast has a completely
clean record : it is true it does not stand for anything but it makes no claim to
though : regarding doing nothing positive that is just nonsense for it challenges the
perceived assumption in society that God or Gods exist and so encourages individuals to
think for themselves which is not something that you can state about organised religion now

[Pappa]

Seth, re: the religion makes people happy bit. It's not quite true. On average religious people are more happy than non-religious people, but only in countries where religion is dominant. The opposite is true where it is not. Also, a person with few friends in a religious community is less happy than an average atheist from the same country. Basically, it's not religion that makes people happy, but feeling they belong to a community. There was an excellent article in the Scientific American Psychology supplement about it a month or so ago which drilled down through a huge set of data on the subject.

This is the article I was referring to:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... skepticism

[Seth]

Religion has substantial positive social utility whether the beliefs are true or not It makes people happy and helps them get through their lives and it does much good in the world Therefore unlike atheism with stand for nothing and does nothing

It is also responsible for international terrorism and historical wars for
the last two thousand years whereas Atheism by contrast has a completely
clean record :

Well, except for those 100 million people killed by Atheists in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and other atheist regimes.

it is true it does not stand for anything but it makes no claim to
though : regarding doing nothing positive that is just nonsense for it challenges the
perceived assumption in society that God or Gods exist and so encourages individuals to
think for themselves which is not something that you can state about organised religion now

What's so great about people thinking for themselves? All we got from that with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot (among others) was 100 million brutally murdered human beings.

I'll take organized religion any day.

[Seth]

Seth, re: the religion makes people happy bit. It's not quite true. On average religious people are more happy than non-religious people, but only in countries where religion is dominant. The opposite is true where it is not. Also, a person with few friends in a religious community is less happy than an average atheist from the same country. Basically, it's not religion that makes people happy, but feeling they belong to a community. There was an excellent article in the Scientific American Psychology supplement about it a month or so ago which drilled down through a huge set of data on the subject.

This is the article I was referring to:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... skepticism

And one of the main positive points of religion is that it creates community quite effectively. That's one of the main reasons it endures as a social meme.

[surreptitious57]

100 million people killed by Atheists in the Soviet Union China Cambodia and other atheist regimes

The Soviet Union and China and Cambodia were Communist regimes and not Atheist ones
Any killing was done in the name of Communism not Atheism and the fact that Stalin
and Mao and Pot were Atheist is incidental : they killed in the name of a political
ideololgy not a religious one : by your logic one should reference Hitler as one
who killed in the name of religion because he was Christian : that was not
the reason though why fifty million lost their lives in the Second World
War : it was because of his political ideology namely Fascism that
allowed that to happen : you cannot name a war in all of history
where Atheists fought purely to impose their will on others
but there were countless that were fought over religion

[Pappa]

Seth, re: the religion makes people happy bit. It's not quite true. On average religious people are more happy than non-religious people, but only in countries where religion is dominant. The opposite is true where it is not. Also, a person with few friends in a religious community is less happy than an average atheist from the same country. Basically, it's not religion that makes people happy, but feeling they belong to a community. There was an excellent article in the Scientific American Psychology supplement about it a month or so ago which drilled down through a huge set of data on the subject.

This is the article I was referring to:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... skepticism

And one of the main positive points of religion is that it creates community quite effectively. That's one of the main reasons it endures as a social meme.

I think you miss the point. In countries where religion isn't dominant, community is created quite effectively through other means.

[Blind groper]

My country is always (from international surveys) in the top three of :

1. least religious
2. most peaceful
3. least corrupt.

Obviously religion makes better people........

[Svartalf]

You got lotsa volcanoes and sheep...
If you were Ozzie, I might draw a correlation to awesome beaches.

[Blind groper]

Hey!!!!

We got awesome beaches too.

If fact, the part of NZ where I live was listed by National Geographic Traveller magazine as the second most beautiful coastline in the world - well ahead of anything Ozzie.
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/tr ... aka-coast/

Since the place they listed as the most beautiful was in Newfoundland, I can pronounce my home district as the most beautiful coastline in the world with a livable climate.

[Svartalf]

Plenty sun bunnies and surfers on your beaches, are there Mate?