An Interesting read.

[James Raynor]

It's about religion though.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDf-aBzSg08

 

[jim_doki]

i cannot see this ending well for you

that said, these are interesting

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It's about religion though.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

Tosh. Part 1 is simple slander. Part 2 is saying Religion can't be proved scientifically.

Well...Duh!

 

[Trace2010]

"Every time we learn more, gods have less room to operate. "

Funny, when Darwin wrote the evolution of the species, he had no ability to know the depth and complexity of the human cell. Currently, we have no capacity to examine and analyze a DNA molecule all at once- much less break down how the 250 proteins created by that singular DNA strand or how said proteins manage to fire in a precise pattern in order to create a normal human being.

Even if we accept "Big Bang" at face value- one of two things had to happen:

1) The massive outward explosion was caused internally (which could not happen if all matter in the universe were compressed)- the galaxy itself tells us that a star cannot become both a supernova and a black hole- it has to choose one or the other.
2) The massive outward explosion was caused externally. If all of the matter in the universe was collected at a single microscopic point- what externally caused it?

Just two cases where this particular argument is obviously flawed.

 

[The Lyre]

It's time for me to put on my snob face.

Back in my days when I frequented religion and philosophy boards, godlessgeeks were frequently torn apart by the more intelligent theists on a regular basis.

Why Atheism? is based on conveniant, flawed assumptions, and you'd be a fool to base your opinion on this.

In fact, the same goes for the Bible, or Dawkins (who seems to be a messiah for Militant Atheists), or any piece of literature - you shouldn't need anything to make up your mind for you, you should come to your own conclusions.

That means you don't need a bunch of idiots on the internet to spoon feed you their 'facts'.

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

Instead of providing an argument that'll probably go nowhere, as it is done many times before (and besides, it appears that most Escapist members are atheists), I do think they are an interesting read. The first one is just claiming to use reason to prove that God exist (though it was anything but reason)... THEREFORE GOD EXIST. The second one is well thought out, though IMAO, it is flawed to an extend.

 

[varulfic]

The logic applied in the "God's Proof" link is highly flawed and has less to do with religion, but more to do with using abnormal levels of wording to indicate "proof".

The Atheism is based more on fact, and proven theory.

Maybe because it's sarcasm?

 

[James Raynor]

The logic applied in the "God's Proof" link is highly flawed and has less to do with religion, but more to do with using abnormal levels of wording to indicate "proof".

The Atheism is based more on fact, and proven theory.

Maybe because it's sarcasm?

The "God proof" is a collection of arguments Theists will use to argue the existence of god.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

Even if we accept "Big Bang" at face value- one of two things had to happen:

Third, we believe people far smarter then either of us and resist conjecture that far back as it is inherently unknowable as the laws of the universe (like causality) had yet to be created.

 

[varulfic]

The "God proof" is a collection of arguments Theists will use to argue the existence of god.

ARGUMENT FROM STAR TREK
(1) You will be assimilated.
(2) All your salvations belong to us.
(3) Resistance is futile.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

 

[Avida]

While atheist i despise these sorts of things, they're all over the net and ...

Tosh. Part 1 is simple slander. Part 2 is saying Religion can't be proved scientifically.

Well...Duh!

... And he can sum it up far better than i can. A major point of religion is that is it a belief not a hypothesis and therefor all the "arguements" raised are completely invalid. A anti-theist could make the same sort of points easily -
X tells me i have proof of Y so Y is real. (x=scientist, media, freinds and family, or any religious text or prophet. And dont you dare say you have investigated anything to the fullest to make proof of anything)
X tells me i have no proof of Y so Y is not real (not only the same sort of idea, but as fataly flawed as anything from links 1 or 2 in that no proof of something does not equal proof of the opposite untill EVERY possible theory is otherwise disproved)

Oh, and i flatly refuse to watch the video. No.

Edit: Actually i feel like ranting further to clean up athesism's name a bit

Are you honestly that reliant on being spoon-fed 'facts' and blindly following them?!
If anything your view suggests that we the humans have the infinite knowledge of a divine being and that we cannot possibly be wrong. We humans are stupid, ignorant and self important beings who have been proven on many occasions to be totally wrong, and your 'atheist' view should imply that.
Facts we know melt away into obscurity the moment you apply them to anything profound, why, because we dont know a millionth of a fraction of everything and thats not the sort of insight you need to take a valid judgement.
Hell ill even bring in the 'matrix-esque' how do you know anything you've experienced is real arguemnent - what are your facts based on, assumptions, you know, like what you seem to think religion is made of.
You claim to be athiest but the idol you worship is the media. Come back when you have spent the time to think deeply about this and form your own view.

[/rant]

 

[axia777]

Religion/God is neither provable nor is it unprovable. Get over it.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

"Every time we learn more, gods have less room to operate. "

Funny, when Darwin wrote the evolution of the species, he had no ability to know the depth and complexity of the human cell. Currently, we have no capacity to examine and analyze a DNA molecule all at once- much less break down how the 250 proteins created by that singular DNA strand or how said proteins manage to fire in a precise pattern in order to create a normal human being.

Even if we accept "Big Bang" at face value- one of two things had to happen:

1) The massive outward explosion was caused internally (which could not happen if all matter in the universe were compressed)- the galaxy itself tells us that a star cannot become both a supernova and a black hole- it has to choose one or the other.
2) The massive outward explosion was caused externally. If all of the matter in the universe was collected at a single microscopic point- what externally caused it?

Just two cases where this particular argument is obviously flawed.

well let us say that The Singularity was caused by a previous Universe that collapsed on itself, technically it would probably be impossible to prove that universe ever existed, say that a previous Universe eventually ran out of energy and stopped expanding and then gravity pulled it all back together and everything was compressed together and this created a massive amount of new energy and thus a new universe was created.
Also about DNA well basically it is never going to precisely create a human being but something that is close, due to mutations and the combination of two individuals no person is ever the same as their parents. I know these things I have said don't sound that eloquent but I'm kinda tired.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The logic applied in the "God's Proof" link is highly flawed and has less to do with religion, but more to do with using abnormal levels of wording to indicate "proof".

The Atheism is based more on fact, and proven theory.

Maybe because it's sarcasm?

The "God proof" is a collection of arguments Theists will use to argue the existence of god.

Which are often used by Atheists in the same way. Even Dawkins relies on Occam's Razor.

 

[Avida]

Funny, when Darwin wrote the evolution of the species, he had no ability to know the depth and complexity of the human cell. Currently, we have no capacity to examine and analyze a DNA molecule all at once- much less break down how the 250 proteins created by that singular DNA strand or how said proteins manage to fire in a precise pattern in order to create a normal human being.

1. We are still primitive, the fact that we cannot understand the fine inner workings of something a tiny majority of people will even have a chance to observe doesnt really suggest that its impossible and/or created by a divine being. Our race (ancient, dead races with little to no impact on us not counted) has only been around a few thousand years and it took a large period of time to work out anything besides how to kill, the study of DNA and is incredibly recent in the big scheme of things and we've already achieved a lot.

2. So what we cant analyze it all at once, we cant analyse all the grains of sand in a desert and work out the friction or any other any other set of physics that keeps it in the shape it is that second, doesnt mean a higher being created it - hell i can make a pile, nothing profound there. Yes i know, i cant make a desert-sized pile... dont have big enough hands.

Ill leave the rest.

Also, for the sake of adding to the discussion rather than just being a douche i dont believe in a god, however i could happily accept some of the more abstract definitions of 'god' - like that everything is made up of god prehaps but i find trouble in believing in a creator.. the whole concept seems fundamentally wrong, things dont add up. Also way out is the 'divine plan' its so... well you probably feel the same, its too late to phrase it well.

 

[gamebrain89]

Religion/God is neither provable nor is it unprovable. Get over it.

I think it would be better to say it is not provable to everyone, nor unprovable to everyone. Some accept arguments presented both for and against god, but you are never going to get everyone to go one way or the other. I personally believe that everything is too damn complex to have come about by complete chance, and nothing you say is going to change that belief. If some one else decides that that belief is for him/her, sweet. other wise, oh well. everyone is different. I realise that not everyone I talk to is going to accept that as proof.

 

[Dys]

"Every time we learn more, gods have less room to operate. "

Funny, when Darwin wrote the evolution of the species, he had no ability to know the depth and complexity of the human cell. Currently, we have no capacity to examine and analyze a DNA molecule all at once- much less break down how the 250 proteins created by that singular DNA strand or how said proteins manage to fire in a precise pattern in order to create a normal human being.

Even if we accept "Big Bang" at face value- one of two things had to happen:

1) The massive outward explosion was caused internally (which could not happen if all matter in the universe were compressed)- the galaxy itself tells us that a star cannot become both a supernova and a black hole- it has to choose one or the other.
2) The massive outward explosion was caused externally. If all of the matter in the universe was collected at a single microscopic point- what externally caused it?


Just two cases where this particular argument is obviously flawed.

1)
A supernova is a sun exploding, a Black hole is a build up of matter where a sun has once been (a dead star if you like). I don't understand what you're trying to say when you say it can't be both, a black hole cannot be without a supernova, as only the largest stars have the mass required to form a black hole, at the same time only the largest stars have the energy required to supernova.

2)
Gravity would be the obvious answer here, everything with mass has a small attraction to everything else with mass, and thuse all matter is slowly moving towards each other. Over infinate (relatively infinate of course) amounts of time the force of gravity will first bring all matter together and then compress it to and beyond the point it can be stored, thus causing matter to be ejected (based on the repelling forces within atoms).

I don't see these obvious flaws :S

 

[Di22y]

Religion/God is neither provable nor is it unprovable. Get over it.

I disagree to some extent, religeon can be disproven by simply proving something which contraticts the religeon as for disproving God depends entirely on whether god has anything to do with any of the organised religeons or not.

 

[axia777]

Religion/God is neither provable nor is it unprovable. Get over it.

I think it would be better to say it is not provable to everyone, nor unprovable to everyone. Some accept arguments presented both for and against god, but you are never going to get everyone to go one way or the other. I personally believe that everything is too damn complex to have come about by complete chance, and nothing you say is going to change that belief. If some one else decides that that belief is for him/her, sweet. other wise, oh well. everyone is different. I realize that not everyone I talk to is going to accept that as proof.

It is called faith for a reason, because an individual can not prove it is there but believes in it anyway. That is the nature of faith in God.

Religion/God is neither provable nor is it unprovable. Get over it.

I disagree to some extent, religion can be disproven by simply proving something which contradicts the religion. As for disproving God it depends entirely on whether god has anything to do with any of the organized religions or not.

What? I do not see your point. How can you disprove the existence of God? How? Simply by saying it is not real? That makes no sense.

Like I said, God and religion can neither be proven real or be proven unreal. Either you believe or you do not. Or you are like me and take no stance wither way because I just do not know. Personally I dislike organized religion for social reasons, not religious ones.